Post navigation

Featured

Since I launched 4th Wave Feminism nearly a year and a half ago, I’ve had hundreds of debates with 3rd Wavers. This includes the likes of AronRa, (yes, THE AronRa), Gender Studies Professors, and entire communities that end up having to delete my comments and / or ban me from the discussion because they’ve got no other way to respond.

Throughout these debates, I’ve found that the links I’m about to provide here have held up time and time again, are unassailable, and often times are so effective that they shut down the discussion almost immediately. 3rd Wavers have little else than name-calling to reply back with. Fair warning – if you start using these, make SURE you save the thread, because you will almost certainly find your comments deleted.

So if you’re wanting to reply to any of the topics that follow, just copy-paste these links into the discussion, and watch the 3rd Wavers go bat-shit. I’m not afraid of them coming here and trying to answer the source, so the comments on this site are always open, and criticism is never moderated. You can go through the comments that we have so far, and you’ll see where a few of them have tried – and failed miserably.

Let me know in the comments if you find these useful, and also tell me what topics you would like to see responses to. These posts usually require a few days of research at least, and usually a day of carefully constructing them so they’re “counter-argument” proof. Because they take so much time, from here on, I’d like some feedback from the community on what you would like to see on this site.

Some ideas I’ve had recently:

— The Academy Awards does not “lack diversity”.

— Fat Shaming is bad, but being fit is not “unrealistic”.

— How to tell the difference between social narratives and social science.

4th Wavers has moved. This site will remain where it is, but all content has been transferred over to www.4thwavers.net , and that’s where all new content will be posted from now on.

As you can see, it’s a major upgrade from what we have here. And that’s where we’ll be from now on. If you’d like to continue linking 4th Wave material, it’s best to do it from the other site so that one gets more traffic. I’ll eventually post up a Patreon, possibly a chat box, and some other stuff.

Share this:

Like this:

This will be perhaps the most ambitious project I’ve ever taken on. I plan to respond to literally every accusation against Donald Trump regarding sexism or racism that can be found in popular media.

The reason I’m doing this? It’s simple. It’s because despite the media spin, there have never been any examples of Donald Trump being either racist or sexist, and yes that includes the whole “Mexicans are Rapists” thing. This post will respond to every accusation, including that one, so sit tight. Basically, I’m tired of hearing people use as the only reason they aren’t voting for Trump is that “he’s racist and sexist”. We’re going to settle this once and for all. At the end of this post, if you still believe Trump is either of those things, it will be only because you simply want to believe, and for no other reason.

To be clear, there *are* legitimate arguments against Trump. But him being sexist or racist simply aren’t among them, and it’s only those accusations specifically that I’ll be answering.

For the SJWs and 3rd Wavers among you, please feel free to close this window and run away to your safe spaces. And yes that’s hyperlinked to an actual example reported by the Washington Post, so it’s not just hyperbole. I’ve had over 100 former friends block me on social media over the last few weeks, many of which I personally helped care for in real life, and I’m still seeing bullshit posts like “If you are voting for Trump / Hillary, please unfriend me”. Only a handful of LGBT people are still connect with. That number will probably reduce further after this post, as I don’t expect this nonsense to end anytime soon. But someone needs to step up and be the voice of reason in an ocean of Buzzfeed and Vox clickbait.

And before we really get into it, we need to define our terms, as we always do on 4th Wavers.

This is essentially the definition used by Martin Luthor King Jr in describing it as “judging by content of character rather than by colour of skin”, with the context of this statement being explained in a speech that is now part of the American identity. It is not the ridiculous notion of including a “power structure” where whites are automatically racist and blacks simply can’t be due to their being more whites in the country (the US population is only 10% black). This is obviously an attempt to excuse all black racism. Clearly, if I took a plane to Nigeria tomorrow, I would both be the minority, and would lack access to a “power structure”. Does that mean I can walk around using the “N word” and every other racist lingo that comes to mind, seeing as how I’m the minority, without a power structure, and therefore can’t be racist? Yea, no – we’re using the definition seen above.

Moving on…

I find it particularly ironic that the definition of sexism involves some level of sexism. Why are women considered more important in the definition itself? Isn’t that an example of sexism? Aren’t men and women equal?

Either way, this is the definition of sexism we’re using. If Donald Trump is rude to most men, he’s not sexist for being rude to a woman, for the reason that he did not discriminate based on gender. If Trump refuses to hire a woman because she doesn’t have the qualifications, that again isn’t sexism. If he refuses to hire her because she’s a woman – that’s exactly what sexism means. We’re going to be referring back to the definition of sexism a lot, as liberals have it to where literally everything a man says to a woman that isn’t apologizing for his existence is somehow a form of sexism. Tell a woman to shut up? Sexism! Tell a man to shut up? No one cares. Open a door for a woman? Sexism! Do you also open doors for men? Yea doesn’t matter. Tell a woman she’s beautiful? Benign sexism! Tell a man he’s beautiful? Hopefully you’re seeing a pattern here. Sexism is rough treatment of a woman because she is a woman. Telling a woman she’s a bitch isn’t sexist if she’s actually being a bitch.

In short, one of the quickest and easiest tools for determining if something is sexist is to simply change male and female roles. If a woman said this to a man, would it still be sexist? If the answer is no (because it’s not discrimination based on gender), then it was never sexist to begin with.

Now, as for the format of this post, I thought about whether it should be divided into parts, or I should follow in the true spirit of the subject matter and make it HUUUUUUUUGE. I’ve decided to go with the latter, so to keep some order and make this easier to navigate, here’s how we’ll do it: hit ctrl + f on your keyboard right now, then copy paste one of the lines below into the search bar on the bottom of your screen. It should take you to the section where that particular set is answered. Each section will include at least one mainstream source on the accusation so we can review what was actually said according to the source. I have someone in the process of remaking 4th Wavers so it has a more modern format, but for now, that’s how we’ll do it.

So here’s the table of contents. ctrl + f to get to them. The first two featured:

— Mexicans are rapists (starting with this one since it’s the most popular)

— “When I come home and dinner’s not ready, I go through the roof” (featured image is here if that’s what you came for.)

Sexism:
— When he belittled his wife / “negotiable assets” remark
— When he called women ‘beautiful pieces of ass’
— When he said all women are goldiggers
— When he said he was irresistible to women
— When he told a woman she’d ‘make a great wife’
— When he cracked an incest gag
— When he slagged off Rosie O’Donnell part one
— When he compared women to architecture
— When he called Angelina ‘not beautiful’
— When he pitched ‘Lady or a Tramp?’
— When he called Anne Hathaway a goldigger
— ‘The Trump rule’
— When he asked men to rate women
— When he called breastfeeding ‘disgusting’
— When he called a female journalist a ‘dog’
— When he joked about his penis
— When he criticised Cher
— When he insulted Arianna Huffington
— When he slagged off Rosie O’Donnell part two
— When he made an oral sex joke
— When he blammed sex assault on cohabitation
— When he did a u-turn on abortion
— When he called Arianna Huffington ugly part two
— When he said Hillary couldn’t ‘satisfy’.
— When he used the word ‘bimbo’
— When he called Heidi Klum fat.
— When he insulted Carly Fiorina
— When he insulted Fiorina part two
— When he said abortion was ‘punishable’
— When he called clinton an ‘enabler’
— When he ‘apologized’ to Megyn Kelly
— That a woman MUST be hot in order to be a journalist.
— That women have a “great act going on to trick men.
— That Bette Midler’s “ugly face and body” are offensive.
— That the best line in any movie is this beautiful gem.
— That women fawn all over him because he is rich and powerful.

Racism:
— The Justice Department sued his company — twice — for not renting to black people
— Discrimination against black people has been a pattern in his career
— He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him
— He questions whether President Obama was born in the United States
— He treats racial groups as monoliths
— He encouraged the mob justice that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment
— He condoned the beating of a Black Lives Matter protester
— He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”
— He stereotyped Jews and shared an anti-Semitic meme
— Laziness is a Trait in Blacks

^^^ Straight off, he’s not talking about all Mexicans. He’s only talking about the ones coming here illegally. Further, he’s acknowledging that Mexico has “their best” – which includes people in the crowd that day. He did not say “Mexicans are rapists”.

>> “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

^^^ Again, where in that statement do you see any indication that “All Mexicans are rapists”?

Now to be fair, he did say “Mexico is SENDING” – and maybe I’m reading this differently than most – but it’s clear that an uneven economic situation currently exists that has people in Mexico wanting to come to the US. It’s also clear that people in poverty commit more crime, and are more desperate to get away from their situations – as such, trying to get into the US. This creates a situation where rapist may indeed be among those coming to the US, which is not at all unreasonable, and is exactly what Trump pointed out.

Again, he did not say “Mexicans are rapists”, or did he intend or imply that.

This one comes from a 1994 interview, and the quote is exactly as it sounds: two people in a heterosexual, consensual relationship, have agreed to take on their respective gender roles and expectations, and one of them doesn’t come through on their side of the agreement, then it’s somehow sexist to call them on it.

But remember, if Trump – taking the traditional male role – didn’t feel like going out and getting a job and wanted to lay around the house all day – then it wouldn’t be sexist AT ALL for his wife to kick his ass for it, right? He needs to stop being lazy and provide for his family, right? Not so much because “that’s what men do” – but that’s what he agreed to in this relationship. His wife at the time, Marla, was a grown woman, and despite what 3rd Wave feminist might think, she is an adult, who is responsible for her own decisions. She married Trump and stayed with him for 6 years. Marla was an actress and TV personality, so there was no discernible economic duress that kept her in this relationship.

Believe it or not, some women like being womanly, and enjoy traditional female roles. There’s nothing sexist about that. And if I, as a woman, want to be a homemaker, then I have responsibilities to that effect. I can’t just lay around whenever I want while someone else pays the bills and expect them to be totally okay with it. Now if I don’t want to be a homemaker – I don’t have to be! I’m an adult. It’s a personal choice. She chose to stay married to him for 6 years.

This argument is particularly strange as it comes from liberals, who will maintain that THIS:

^ Is 100% PERFECTLY NORMAL in the home, and should totally be respected – and in fact you’re oppressing LGBT rights somehow if you don’t agree.

………. and they would of course have a very reasonable point. What two people do in their own home, as long as it’s consensual, is entirely okay.

Except if you want dinner on the table. I mean, that’s just completely across the line. How dare you. Sexist!

========================================

3. When he belittled his wife / “negotiable assets” remark

Source: Here and here. You can see the full story with the original quote here.

Not much to say on this one. Trump reportedly said: “I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?”

Remember our sexist test? Switch it around, and imagine a woman saying this to a man. 3rd Wavers would jump up on the chance to remind everyone that women do not owe you their time, money, or assets, and that if a man wants his own jewelry there’s no reason he can’t get a job and buy his own. For sure this does make Trump sound rather cold… if I were married, I’d sorta *want* to give my wife stuff… but hey, you don’t have to, and it’s on Ivanna to know the person she’s getting married to before she marries him, then take the good with the bad, for better or worse. Again, if we switch the genders around, the man would be seen as a leech who’s only married to a “sugar mama” for free stuff.

The exact quote is: “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

Lets use our sexist test! Switch it around. A woman is saying this about a man. Still sexist? Are you going to tell me that I, as a woman, am not allowed to express my sexual interest in a man? Of course not – that would be sexist. I’m an independent woman and I can growl when I see a hot muscular man take his shirt off in this July heat we’re having. With his muscles all glistening in the sun. For some reason that’s totally okay.

But turn this around, and somehow it’s sexist. Sure. Remember that definition by the way? “Sexist” means “discrimination against women”. So wtf is a man supposed to do? Say the same exact thing about other men so he doesn’t discriminate???

This claim is a bit strange… because the example they use doesn’t say anything like this.

Here’s the exact quote:

“There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle [aww, how sweet]. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else [if that’s your opinion]. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp [yea, there are women out there who are like that. Hell every woman I know will vouch for me on this one – we *all* have met someone exactly like this at one point]. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her [right, but I don’t think this excludes that she might also be signing because she loves you like the first woman does].”

^^^ Trump here is pointing out the cruel reality that *some* women definitely are after money. But he very clearly points out with his first example that *not* all women are like that. Some women do love you. He flat out says that.

The exact quote: “all of the women on The Apprentice flirted with me – consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected”.

^^^ Really? Saying women flirt with you is sexist? I mean… okay, what if women actually did flirt with him? Then what? He has to lie about it?

Why the hell is this even included on the list??? It’s not even worth using the Sexist Test where we flip it around. If a woman said men flirted with her and “that’s to be expected”…. well… YEA! Thank you Captain Obvious! But sure this is somehow sexist.

I’ll admit, I was already rolling my eyes just as soon as I copy-pasted this from the table of contents above, wondering in what POSSIBLE context telling someone this could EVER be sexist. And now let me click over to the other tab to find out.

From the link: According to one woman who appeared on the show, Trump told her: “I bet you make a great wife”.

Okay. If you say so. I’m not even sure how this could ever *possibly* be discriminatory towards women, since a man generally wouldn’t be a wife, but rather would be a “husband”, even if he married another man. So a woman is able to become a wife, and most women actually do want to fall in love and settle down one day. But yea. I have a feeling I’m gonna end up with a headache trying to understand some of these.

>> According to ABC News, back in 2006 Trump said “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

>> A spokesman later said it was a ‘joke’.

^^^ The title of this article is “Trump Sexism Tracker”. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

If your daughter were not your daughter, then you would not know her to be your daughter. You wouldn’t have *any* of the memories you currently have of her. This would be another universe where the two of you had never met, and she would not be related to you.

Alright moving on this one isn’t even worth spending time on. There’s nothing here that is discriminatory towards women on the basis of gender, which is the definition of sexism.

>> “Rosie O’Donnell is disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she’s a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I’d fire Rosie. I’d look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’

^^^ Okay, first… you say you don’t like a single woman, and that makes you sexist towards all women? I mean it’s okay to not like one single woman. I’m not a huge fan of Sarah Palin, and I’ve said some rough things about her before. Come to think of it… and I’m just throwing this out there… I’m willing to bet that if Trump had said the same exact thing about Palin? Probably wouldn’t have made the list. Hell he’d be consider a hero for having said that!

The definition of “sexism” being used for this list seems to include criticism of absolutely anyone who the left admires. You’re not allowed to call Rosie fat. But you’re absolutely allowed – and encouraged – to call Sarah Palin stupid and Ann Coulter ugly. That’s not sexist at all!

God… I can’t believe I’ve been on this for hours and I’m only up to number 10. And this is mostly from just one source. What have I gotten myself into…. the stupid is starting to hurt…

From the link:

>> “Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.”

>> At least our beauty isn’t superficial, eh ladies?

^^^ Right. Remember way up there in the introduction, where I pointed this out? Telling a woman she’s beautiful is sexist. Telling her she’s ugly is sexist. Holding a door open is sexist. NOT holding a door open is sexist. Basically, if you’re white, cis-gender, and male, and you’re doing something – it’s sexist.

—————Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and appreciation of art, beauty and good taste. It has also been defined as “critical reflection on art, culture and nature”. The word “aesthetics” derives from the Greek “aisthetikos”, meaning “of sense perception”. Along with Ethics, aesthetics is part of axiology (the study of values and value judgements).
—————

^ Yes, that’s right. Even philosophy itself is sexist now. And you have nothing to lose but your chains (cuz you already lost your friggen mind).

========================================

11. When he called Angelina ‘not beautiful’ / That Angelina Jolie has dated too many guys to be attractive.

>> “I really understand beauty. And I will tell you, she’s not—I do own Miss Universe. I do own Miss USA. I mean I own a lot of different things. I do understand beauty, and she’s not”.

^^^ We **JUST SAID** in the previous one of these that saying women are beautiful, and beauty is not superficial, WAS SEXIST!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now you’re saying that when a woman ISN’T beautiful, that too is sexist????

Okay so men just CANNOT SPEAK! I was joking earlier about anything a man says is sexist but god friggen dammit! This is clearly not a joke! If Angelina is beautiful, that’s literally a sexist statement – and if she’s not beautiful, THAT’S ALSO somehow a sexist statement!!!

And from the second link:

>> “[Angelina Jolie’s] been with so many guys she makes me look like a baby… And, I just don’t even find her attractive,”

^^^ I’m kind of wondering which part of that is *supposed* to be sexist… the part where he doesn’t find her attractive? Or the part where she’s been with a lot of guys? But at this point I’m starting to wonder if each and every word of this sentence isn’t somehow sexist. Like…. linking verbs and shit. Your prepositions and adjectives be oppressing me! STOP OPPRESSING ME, PARTS OF SPEECH!!! Why is grammar so sexist??? WHY???

God I’m starting to lose my mind and we’re only at 11. This post started out as a response to accusations of Trump’s sexism. It instead will be the documented process of Athena slowly losing her mind.

—– —–How many of you gals out there would like to send the men you meet trying to find Mr. Right to charm school? Imagine that those men learned how to really look at you and listen. Their bachelor pad had all the comforts a girl could want. This is not some pie in the sky dream. You may be meeting a man near you who is skilled in the art of seduction, love, conversation and who can possibly even make a mean pasta pomodoro.
—– —–

So, yes. That appears to be an accurate description. And also her husband was arrested for money laundering, so the reason behind him not having money anymore seems rather important. Pretty damn reasonable decision, not something I would call being a “golddigger” – and note that Trump never used that word. Probably because finding out your love interest has laundered his fortunes, and then not wanting to be with him because of that, doesn’t make you a golddigger (except according to The Telegraph, apparently).

Sigh…. okay. What’s it gonna be this time? He’s sexist because his name is Trump? He made a rule once, and now he’s sexist? I’m answering these as I read them. They’re so fallacious that most of them require literally no research.

She wrote: “Many of the girls found this exercise humiliating. Some of the girls were sobbing backstage after [he] left, devastated to have failed even before the competition really began . . . it was as though we had been stripped bare.”
—– —–

Okay look, you are at The Miss USA pageant. This is a beauty contest! You are being judged based on how beautiful you are!! You don’t want to be judged that way? Then DON’T BE IN THE CONTEST!!! Trump being one of the judges doesn’t make him sexist. You being offended that you’re not pretty enough – in a beauty contest – makes you an idiot. That’s like me not lifting the most in a bench press contest then being sad and offended that I didn’t win and then claiming you were being sexist.

First, I’m personally 100% with breast feeding in public, and have always kinda scratched my head when folks raise a fuss about it. I don’t see the big deal. But apparently, there’s this idea that it’s just not an appropriate thing to do in public. That’s not a gender thing, it’s not a sexist thing – in Louisiana, wearing your hat indoors is considered inappropriate, and I remember folks getting yelled at for it when I was growing up there as a teenager. Why is it so important? No idea. It’s just one of those things that culture says we shouldn’t do.

Second, a pattern is beginning to emerge here. Trump never actually said she was disgusting for wanting to breast feed. The man is in court, battling against someone who wants a recess when Trump doesn’t, and the judge rules in her favor. I can imagine that’s probably the actual source of the remark, and had nothing to do with breast feeding. But you’re just supposed to believe that anyway, because Trump is sexist. And we know he says sexist things, because he’s sexist. And we know he’s sexist because he says sexist things.

—– —–In 2012, transgender Miss Universe contestant Jenna Talackova was kicked out of the contest for not having declared her trans status in her entry (the pageant does now accept trans people). Talackova’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, angrily said that no one had asked Trump to ‘prove’ he was a man by showing his anatomy.

^^^ First, the issue surrounding trans people and our participation in public events is a brand new issue people are beginning to face, and along the way, we’re going to have to restructure some of the rules and administrative processes that were written with cis-people in mind.

What this little tid bit doesn’t mention is that it was, in fact, Donald Trump himself, who stepped in and reversed the decision to not allow Jenna to compete.

—– —–“As long as she meets the standards of legal gender recognition requirements of Canada, which we understand that she does, Jenna Talackova is free to compete in the 2012 Miss Universe Canada pageant,” said Michael Cohen, special counsel to Trump and executive vice president of his business group.

“Nobody is capitulating. Rather the Miss Universe organization is respecting the laws of Canada,” Cohen told Reuters, adding that she, “like all the other contestants, is wished the best of luck by Mr. Trump.”
—— —–

^ Now it’s something how the Telegraph article forgot to mention *any* of that, and the only thing we heard was him Jenna being kicked out of the competition, and him making a joke about his penis.

…… sorry Cher, but as the old saying goes, if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. If you’re expecting that you can trash talk him as much as you want, and he’ll just sit there and hang his head and take it, think again. And there’s nothing here that’s sexist; Trump would fire back against anyone; man, woman, black, white, tall, short, fat, thin – anyone.

Again, Trump very openly attacks just about anyone who goes up against him. This is actually what makes him more honest. If he doesn’t like you, he doesn’t smile and pretend that he does – he lets you and everyone else know in no uncertain terms, and he’ll change his tone as soon as you change yours.

Does that make him an asshole? Probably. But it doesn’t make him sexist or racist. If you go up against Trump, no matter who you are, he’s coming right back at you.

I like how in order to make him seem sexist, we have to track down absolutely every woman he’s ever insulted – and noticeably absent are all the men he’s ever insulted. They aren’t included in this list. I wonder why.

As for his comment, he needs a trillion dollars before he’d make out with Rosie?? Hell I’d need at least 2 trillion! (I’m a woman so I can say that and it’s not sexist.)

We’re up to 22 so far and not a single example of sexism or racism yet. And now we’re referencing that one time he made a sex joke.

From the link:

—– —–Former Playboy playmate Brande Roderick was a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice in the US. During a tense boardroom battle, she knelt in front of Trump – who takes the Alan Sugar role – to ask him whether she could be the next project manager.

After a six second silence (an eternity on TV), during which Trump presumably willed some blood to return to his head – he said: “It must be a pretty picture. You dropping to your knees”.
—– —–

First, this is a Playboy playmate. I’m guessing she’s done a hell of a lot more than just get on her knees (I’m a woman so I can say that and it’s not sexist). (Of course, it’s also not sexist because it’s 100% friggen true.) You can see the joke here.

And you know why none of those are considered sexist? Scroll back up and read the definition of sexism.

Just think of Trump said *any* of the things the women in the above videos have said. Imagine the media firestorm over how horrible, sexist, and misogynist he would be, for having dared say things that women say, on stage, and other women laugh about. Tell me more about how male privilege lets men say whatever they want but oppresses women.

If you’d like to see the numbers regarding military cohabitation (copy pasted from the above link), in 1985, Charles P. McDowell conducted a study of 1,218 rape reports filed in the US Air Force.

Taken from a newspaper in the late 1800s. False accusations are even seen in the bible; in Genesis 39: 7-18, Joseph goes through his own ordeal of being falsely accused, showing that people of the time were familiar with the concept. Thankfully today, we have “innocent until proven guilty” – a foundational principle of justice that 3rd Wavers of course find problematic.

Of these, 460 were found to be proven by legal standards, but 212 turned out to be false allegations. And this time, the accusers actually gave their reasons! 20% claimed they did it out of spite or revenge, another 20% claimed it was to compensate for feelings of guilt or shame, 13% said they thought they might be pregnant, 12% said it was to conceal a love affair, and the remaining had various other reasons. That’s a considerable amount of ruining someone’s life forever, and some pretty f*cked up reasons for doing it.

The link above provides numerous other case studies on women who file false charges, and provides some insight as to why. Also according to the numbers, some 40% of rapists are women (sources provided in the link above), and one study found 95% of sexual assaults at one juvenile facility were carried out by female staff.

Rapes and sexual assaults account for only 0.43% of total crime in the US, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. We have one of the lowest rape and sexual assault rates in the world, even in the military.

Still, it’s an absolutely valid concern that men and women are going to cause drama if you put them in the same facilities together and do not lay down rules for governing behavior, expectations of professionalism, and related training.

Basically, Trump is pro-life, therefore he’s sexist. Because you can’t be pro-life for any other reason, right? And all pro-life people just secretly hate women, and have no other *possible* reason for being pro-life?

I’m thinking liberals see a list this long about Trump being sexist, then don’t actually bother to read it. The headline agrees with what they want to think, and that’s all that matters. The authors of these pieces understand this, and hence why so many of these are so whimsical and frivolous.

And remember, it’s only always ever the ones about calling women ugly – never the ones about men. I’m guessing because it would somehow hurt the case for sexism if we acknowledged he calls men ugly since that’s not sexism, that’s social justice.

Also we’re literally using the *same* people we’ve already covered more than once just to make the list longer.

Switch test. If a woman said this about a man, still sexist? If you want an even more thorough test, imagine Trump (or any other man) saying this about a man, or a woman saying this about another woman. It has to remain sexist in all situations, or it was never sexist to begin with.

Also, does anyone from Oregon remember Monica Wehby? You can read a little about her story here. I was actually working for the Democratic Party of Portland during the time of her campaign, and was on the phones trying to get democratic candidates re-elected. It was during this time that I saw just how much the left was gleefully dragging this woman’s name through the mud over her divorce. Even at that time, as an ardent democrat, kept thinking that this was a sensitive part of her personal life that shouldn’t be messed with – and how our side would hit the roof if a republican did this to one of our people. And no one on the left ever called out anyone on the left when it came to attacking Monica. It was never seen as “sexist”.

I’m sure I could dig up a half dozen more instances of the left doing this, like making fun of Sarah Palin’s kids, or Anne Coulter’s looks, as we’ve already covered.

Attacking Hillary’s personal life with Bill is a normal part of the mud slinging that goes with any political election. Both the left and right do it, because it has an effect and it does work to sway voters. But it’s not sexist.

This again, huh? We’ve done abortion already. But yea lets do it again.

>> Trump caused mass outage after advocating “some form of punishment” for women who have abortions if the practise is banned (which it likely will be if he gets his way).

^^^ Wow. Punishing someone for breaking the law. How sexist can you get?

And don’t get it twisted – abortion is one of those things I don’t completely agree with the GOP on. I think early term abortions should be okay. Only your most fanatical 3rd Waver rad-fem would support having an abortion one day before the due date, demonstrating that most reasonable people are indeed somewhat pro-life.

But no matter where you stand on this issue, pro-life does not = sexist. And neither does wanting to enforce the law. If abortion is illegal, and you have an abortion, you broke the law.

>> At a rally, he said: “Bill Clinton was the worst in history and I have to listen to her talking about it?” he said in Eugene, Oregon. “Just remember this: She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler.

^^^ Again, ripping on someone’s personal life when you don’t know the full reality of what’s going on with them. It’s also not really an effective counter argument, though it would appeal to folks who are already against Hillary, as mud-slinging typically does. But how is this “sexist”?

I’m actually using the ctrl + F method now to determine if I’ve already covered this one. It’s coming off a source that overlapped a lot with the one we just finished with.

Anyway, the claim here: “It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on ‘The Apprentice’ were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal.”

^^^ Statements like this are just so damn confusing. On what conceivable level is this sexist? We’re all grown adults here. We all *know* that women have physical features and assets that make them attractive to men (and sometimes even to other women). How is stating the obvious a sexist statement? Do we really need to pretend that women don’t have curves? That the sound of a woman’s voice, or the look of her eyes, or the way she moves, isn’t an obvious motivator for people to do things in their favor?

I’ve been given promotions and raises before because I was pretty. I mean, yea, that does, in fact, happen in the grown up world. And there was no way in hell I could ever have that happen as a man. I can’t bat my eyes, twirl my hair, blush, and get free stuff. This is absolutely an advantage that some women have. It’s the same reason we’re less likely to get speeding tickets and more likely to get warnings. And it’s never the women who actually have this advantage that complain that it’s sexist. Ever notice that?

The woman in the swimsuit calendar that gets a 6 figure income for doing a fun job that she loves doing isn’t the one demanding this form of “sexism” end. I doubt any of the women on The Apprentice were complaining that they were winning because they were pretty. Again, this is an obvious advantage, and it’s never the women who *have* this advantage who are complaining about it.

The quote: “I mean, we could say politically correct that look doesn’t matter, but the look obviously matters,” — “Like you wouldn’t have your job if you weren’t beautiful.”

^^^ Again, are we supposed to pretend like women aren’t beautiful? And any acknowledgement that they are is sexist?

Here’s an interesting quote from Judge Judy – yes, THE Judge Judy – from her book What Would Judy Say: Be The Hero of Your Own Story:

——————————-
“Let’s be real. I understand that as women we want to be respected for our abilities and our intellects. But the idea that we should all treat each other as if we are neutered, genderless creatures is just plain silly. I say to women—and to men, too—use all of your assets. I find it disingenuous for women to wear short skirts, high heels, and flattering sweaters and then complain because men look at them.

I figured this out as a lawyer because there are few places that so rely on personal appeal as a courtroom. Use my feminine wiles? Damn right! It’s not just women who do this. I remember going to see Jerry when he was a lawyer. He was delivering his summation to the jury—six men and six women. Jerry cut a cute figure and I saw him unbutton his jacket, put his hands in his pockets, and strut back and forth. He was working that jury like a hooker on a street corner. He probably would have won anyway, but he was using his assets—all of them.”
——————————-

^^^ So… Judge Judy is just as sexist as Trump? Probably so, given how we’re defining “sexism” these days. Any recognition that women are … well, women, is sexism.

Here’s the quote: “Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.”

^^^ If anyone reading happens to be in Portland, Oregon, we can go out together sometime, and I will show you how a woman can do this. I absolutely can get things from men by flirting with them. Not every woman can, and those who can don’t always choose to, but this most certainly does happen.

In fact, one of these days if I have someone follow me with a camera phone, I’ll even demonstrate it and post it on youtube. I can walk into a place with a sign posted “customers only” for the restrooms, and if I’m dressed and sound like a man, I won’t get in. If I’m dressed and sound like a woman, they almost always hand over the key.

If I walk up to a bus stop when the bus is just getting there, and someone else has been waiting for half an hour, if I’m dressed like a man, they’ll go first. If I’m dressed like a woman, they’ll stand aside and let me board first.

I’m a woman who used to be a man, so I can still wear men’s clothes and sound like one. I can demonstrate these differences right in front of you.

Again, it’s interesting how the women who get this advantage never complain that it’s sexist, and neither do the men who joyfully provide this advantage. It’s always those who aren’t involved in this exchange who like to cry sexist.

Quote: “My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch be cool.’ I love those lines.”

It’s interesting that if Trump said his favorite part of a movie is where the bad guy gets shot in the head 20 times, that’d be totally fine. Anyway I’ve never seen Pulp Fiction, so I don’t know the context of this scene. It sounds like a line from a bad guy, because bad guys are supposed to talk like that. They usually end up getting shot, blown up, or run over at some point – and the audience cheers! But saying “bitch be cool” – yea, seriously a problem. Can’t allow that.

Quote: “Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is a man who is certain about what he wants and sets out to get it, no holds barred,” Trump said about himself one time. “Women find his power almost as much of a turn-on as his money.”

^^^ Which part of this statement is supposed to be sexist?

That as a woman, it’s sexist that I like a strong, powerful man? Am I not allowed to like that? I also like money. Am I not allowed to like that either?

Okay what if I were a man and I liked strong powerful women? What about a man who likes strong powerful men? How bout a non-binary person, as Oregon has now recently recognized that as a gender identification. If you’re non-binary, are you allowed to like strong and powerful men? Powerful women?

Someone please explain to me which of my emotions are automatically sexist so I can memorize them and remember never to feel them.

And with that, we are finally done with another source!

========================================

40. The Justice Department sued his company — twice — for not renting to black people

Quote: “When Trump was serving as the president of his family’s real estate company, the Trump Management Corporation, in 1973, the Justice Department sued the company for alleged racial discrimination against black people looking to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.”

You can find a little background on the Trump Organization, which is freely available online, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization . The company was founded in 1923, and has over 22,000 employees. It’s very possible for 2 or 3 people in an agency that big to actually be racist, especially since there’s always that “one guy”.

Imagine if Wal-Mart, with it’s 1.4 million employees, had a store somewhere in Texas that denied employment to a black person. You’d have to be on drugs (or maybe just a liberal) to think that makes the ENTIRE COMPANY – including all board members and it’s CEO – a bunch of racists. It’d be even more telling if the CEO, Doug McMillon, were then completely outraged upon finding out such a thing, and took legal action as a result. Any reasonable person would call that the right move.

…. except if it’s Trump. Who did actually file a counter-suit for defamation. This is a person who wears his heart on his sleeve, speaks his mind, says exactly what he’s thinking, and immediately responds to such accusations with outrage. In fact, in his own words on the matter in The Art of the Deal:

“What we didn’t do was rent to welfare cases, white or black . . . I’d rather fight than fold, because as soon as you fold once, you get the reputation of being a folder.“. Completely reasonable: If you don’t rent to welfare recipients, and most of those are unfortunately black, then that’s how the numbers may tend to come out. And I’m saying this as someone who has received welfare benefits for most of her adult life in the US. The sad truth is, I can’t be on welfare, and also rent a space in any property I want. That’s the case regardless of my skin colour. This whole thing can be made a lot worse if you have some one in your company of 22,000 employees who comes up with the wise idea of making the call based on how the person looks rather than due process.

According to the justice department, the settlement was “in no way an admission of a violation“. That’s probably why Trump went on to say in his book: “In the end the government couldn’t prove its case, and we ended up making a minor settlement without admitting any guilt.”

Despite this, Trump still went on to make changes in his company to ensure that no discrimination could happen without him being aware, and also agreed to work closely with the New York Urban League (a civil rights group). However, this *did not* mean changing the no-welfare requirement, which stayed. As a result, Trump was called back into court again in 1978, but the justice department could do absolutely nothing to build a case. It’s not against the law to discriminate against welfare recipients.

So this claim falls flat.

========================================

41. In fact, discrimination against black people has been a pattern in his career

Quote: “When Donald and Ivana came to the casino, the bosses would order all the black people off the floor,” Kip Brown, a former employee at Trump’s Castle, told the New Yorker for a September article. “It was the eighties, I was a teen-ager, but I remember it: they put us all in the back.”

Not sure why “teen-ager” is hyphenated. Anyway, the second source link explains this a little more accurately. A New Jersey appeals court upheld a 200,000 dollar fine because managers – not trump – had removed a black dealer when they were asked to by a high rolling gambler named Robert Libutti – who is also not Trump.

Again, none of this is Trump. It’s people in his company. Trump himself has spoken out against racism and other forms of bigotry numerous times:

It’s a legitimate criticism that Trump could possibly do more to root out and stop such behavior happening in his own company before it happens, but there is absolutely *no* indication, anywhere so far, that Trump himself is a racist.

So… we’re up to number 42 on this list now. Most of these accusations have had absolutely no merit whatsoever, and the small portion that may have seemed to did not hold up under even the briefest scrutiny. And we’ve seen how on number 7, telling someone they’ll make a great wife is sexist (I still wonder if telling someone they’ll be a good husband is also sexist). On number 10, saying that women are beautiful is sexist.

And at this point in the list, we’re seeing that accusations of racism are thrown around the exact same way.

If somebody walks up to me and says “This person is a racist / sexist! Are you against them???” – yea, no. I’m gonna need wayyyyyy more information from now on. By racist these days you could literally mean just about anything OTHER THAN the actual definition of racist.

So apparently, 16 years ago, Trump was disgusted with David Duke and his racism!!

16 years is a long time. I mean there are people I knew that long ago that I’d have a hard time recalling. That’s probably why he kept saying he doesn’t know anything about him. If you haven’t hung out with someone in nearly 2 decades, that’s a pretty safe bet.

Some time later, Trump gets the update, finds out who the guy is, and what does he do?

Quote: “Long before calling Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists,” Trump was a leading proponent of “birtherism,” the racist conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is thus an illegitimate president.”

Oh yea. Several things.

1. How is this racist? Nobody brought up racism when people were questioning if Ted Cruz could be president because he might have been born in Canada. You seriously friggen *can* call literally anything and everything “racist” these days. How is being born in another country racist? I can’t even….

2. Trump never called Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists”. Scroll back up and read the very first one of these we covered in this post.

3. The original birther claim did, in fact, come from the Hillary camp. Now, to be clear, Hillary Clinton herself was not the one who started that, so lets keep our facts straight. It was actually one of her campaign strategists who saw and opportunity. Hillary did try using this for leverage during her 2008 campaign bid, but she eventually relented and encouraged her voters to support Obama. So she was out pretty early on, but Trump kept going with it. Again, bottom line is that this originated with the Clinton camp, not with Trump.

Quote: Like many racial instigators, Trump often answers accusations of bigotry by loudly protesting that he actually loves the group in question. But that’s just as uncomfortable to hear, because he’s still treating all the members of the group — all the individual human beings — as essentially the same and interchangeable. Language is telling, here: Virtually every time Trump mentions a minority group, he uses the definite article the, as in “the Hispanics,” “the Muslims” and “the blacks.”

^^^ Okay, so did you get that? Referring to a group of people as a demographic is racist. That is: saying “blacks” do such and such, or “hispanics” want such and such – is racist. Before you go further, go back up to the start of this point, and read it again real slow. Even read from the original source on this one – trust me, it’s worth it. Make SURE you understand what’s being said here.

“The Hispanics / Latinos / Native Americans” getting jobs, or loving Trump, or loving Hillary for that matter (unless it’s only racist if they love Trump) – are all examples of racism.

Are you ready for this? Lets check out how many websites are TOTALLY F*ING RACISTS!!!

http://www.kidzworld.com/article/4973-hispanic-culture-and-traditions <– Even a site called Kidz World is treating Hispanics like they’re a “monolithic” group of people with a shared cultural understanding that leads to commonalities in their thoughts behavior and choices! Is this *really* what we want to teach our children??? (Because that’s pretty much what I’d be teaching mine…)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44247/ <– Scientific research CLAIMING that Hispanic people have needs that should be considered as far as their mental health is concerned! Someone have Trump say “The Hispanics need mental healthcare” so we can condemn this study for being a completely factual and peer reviewed study on the importance of cultural sensitivity RACIST!!!

Not meaning to get too sociological at this point, since only maybe 2 people have bothered to read this far, but there’s a difference between gendered / racial expectations, and stereotypes. What are they?

Gender expectations: “This job requires walking alone at night, under bridges, through dark alleys, checking up on homeless individuals who may be suffering from mental health disorders and providing them with supplies and resources (an typical job description of community outreach work). A woman probably won’t like this job because most women try to avoid such situations if they can, but we’re of course still an equal opportunity employer.”

Stereotypes: “You can’t work this job, YOU’RE A GIRL!”

Okay, see the difference? If a woman applies for a job as a community outreach worker, the hiring agency will probably take steps to make sure she knows what she’s getting into, because it’s perfectly reasonable that most women would change their minds once they really know what’s expected of them, whereas most men might see it as an adventure. Gender expectations are a safe assumption regarding the differences between men and women, while gender stereotypes are an insistence that each gender must adhere to your preconceived ideas.

There are racial expectations too. If I told you that I was walking by the inner city park this afternoon and saw some kids playing basketball… what image comes to your mind? Black kids? Cool. That’s exactly what I thought of too. That’s not racist – I’m not saying black kids have to play basketball! I’m saying when I think of inner city kids and basketball, I think of black kids, because that’s generally a reasonable expectation to have. If you walked into a golf club, would most people be black or white? Having an answer to that question does not make you racist. Saying only white people can play golf – THAT’S racist.

This is precisely why you have so many webpages talking about Hispanic voters / behaviors / preferences / and so on. Hispanics absolutely do have preferences as a group. That’s not the same as stereotyping, or seeing them as “monolithic”, or whatever intellectualize academic-sounding buzz word you decide to use to make your nonsense sound more valid.

But like I said, probably only 2 people have read this far, and I probably just put one of you to sleep.

Before we move on, also from the source link:

Quote: “I have a great relationship with the blacks,” Trump said in April 2011. “I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.”

Quote: “In 1993, when Trump wanted to open a casino in Bridgeport, Connecticut, that would compete with one owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Nation, a local Native American tribe, he told the House subcommittee on Native American Affairs that “they don’t look like Indians to me… They don’t look like Indians to Indians.”

You can see the video here:

Basically, Trump owns casinos, and wants to open new casinos in a territory where Native Americans are also operating them. In his view, the fact that Natives don’t have to pay taxes, and he does, is “anti-competitive”. You can see a little more about the complexity of this lawsuit here: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/04/nyregion/trump-in-a-federal-lawsuit-seeks-to-block-indian-casinos.html <– this is a report from when the case was actually happening, so it’s a bit more journalistic than nearly every other result on google where it’s basically “Trump said something something casinos HE’S RACIST!!!”

It’s an interesting question as to whether or not this actually creates and anti-competitive situation in the gambling industry. The Indian Casinos are referred to as a “monopoly” in the article linked above. Is this a situation we should just accept due to the need for “reparations”? That’s definitely a question that will never get discussed since the moment anyone even tries, liberals will start screaming that it’s racist to shut down the discussion.

As to whether it’s racist to point out that someone does or doesn’t “looks Indian”, and more importantly, whether someone actually is Indian before they can get benefits, as Trump was pointing out… need I remind you:

Even if you don’t remember her name, you certainly remember her face. Rachel Dolezal “looks black”, but isn’t black, and caused an outrage among liberals. Funny how the question of whether or not you actually are the race you claim to be suddenly matters whenever you want it to. If I said she doesn’t “look black” – then later it turns out she actually isn’t black – is that still racist?

Yes. Of course it is. Because literally everything is racist.

Long story short – Trump questioning whether or not someone “looks Indian” isn’t racist, since most people absolutely are aware that there is a certain appearance that “looks Indian” (just like there’s such a thing as “looks black” or “looks white”). As was pointed out earlier, “racial expectations” are not racist. If you’re black, I expect you to have black skin. If you have white skin, well, you don’t “look black”.

========================================

46. He encouraged the mob justice that resulted in the wrongful imprisonment

Sweet! I came back to this after a few weeks of break, thinking I was going to have a tough time researching the ones still remaining. Thankfully, this one has absolutely nothing at all to do with race, so it doesn’t even require research.

You can even see the actual ad itself here, which was hyperlinked in the original source. In it, Trump very clearly says “New York Families — White, Black, Hispanic and Asian — have had to give up the pleasure of a leisurely stroll in the Park at dusk“.

He never once mentions the race or colour of the criminals.

He even talks about “the noble pursuit of civil liberties”.

For f*cks sake, he is being as non-racist as a person could possibly ever get. I challenge you to think of a LESS RACIST way of putting this ad.

Because I actually care about accuracy, I went ahead and watched the little video clip on the webpage. Reading just the headline, I had no idea what race the person in question was. I mean, are you assuming that he’s black just because he’s a BLM protester? That you can’t be white and do that? I’m sure that’s not a racist assumption because “racist” is clearly a word that means whatever you want it to mean, and it’s meaning can change whenever you want it to.

Someone goes into a Trump rally, starts chanting a slogan that’s at odds with the rally, takes off his sweatshirt to reveal a shirt with the slogan, gets told to leave – he WON’T leave, then people start pushing and shoving him, and he starts fighting back. And you really believe this *only* happened because he was black, and it would not also happen if he were white.

========================================

48. He called supporters who beat up a homeless Latino man “passionate”

I mean if “passionate” isn’t the right word here – what is? Calm? Rational? Level-headed? Especially if you don’t know the details of what happened, “passionate” seems like a pretty blanket term that you can use without saying anything too pointed.

I’m so glad these have started to get back to the normal rhetoric of “everything-is-racist”, as it spares me from having to do anymore in-depth research on complicated topics or read court transcripts to find out what was actually said. Some of those above took a lot of work! But we’re back to the brain numbing routine we started out on.

Quote: “I’m a negotiator, like you folks,” – said by Trump, followed by – “But that wasn’t even the most offensive thing Trump told his Jewish audience.”

Yes. That’s right. “I’m a negotiator like you” is so terribly offensive.

How is Family Guy even still on the air by this point?

^^^ Seriously, someone please explain to me why the same liberals and SJWs who are constantly on about Trump’s “racism” don’t seem to mind literally every episode of Family Guy. They can make hundreds of jokes on racial stereotypes, but Trump dares to mention “negotiations” in front of Jews, and it’s considered to be nearly “the most offensive thing”.

Unbelievably, this same article states:

Ironically, Trump has many close Jewish family members. His daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism in 2009 before marrying the real estate mogul Jared Kushner. Trump and Kushner raise their two children in an observant Jewish home.

…………………… and yet, in the paragraph just above that one…. he’s racist.

I guess it’s the same way I – a trans woman – sometimes get called “transphobic” when I don’t agree with a liberal. These words really are meaningless. The article doesn’t even care if Trump’s daughter is Jewish, or that he has Jewish family members. Hell Trump himself could be Jewish and I’ve no doubt that it still wouldn’t matter.

This statement comes from a book written by John O’Donnell, a former employee of Trump who quit to avoid being fired, and who had a personal vendetta against Trump. Nearly all of the claims in O’Donnell’s book come just from O’Donnell himself, with absolutely no way to confirm or verify any of them. Moreover, many of his claims simply clash with what we would expect from Trump. They sound nothing like him.

“I worship Satan. He’s a great guy. Sacrifice goats to him twice a week. And I pray for the downfall of mankind. When the world is burning, I’ll be king. I like that.” <– If this appeared in O’Donnell’s book, no one would question that either, even though that sounds just as ridiculous as some of O’Donnell’s claims on the page and sounds equally out of character for Trump.

========================================

At long last, this list is complete. We’ve covered 50 accusations so far on racism and sexism, and absolutely *none* of them hold up. A few I had to actually sit down and research, but most fell immediately on their own. I’m still not able to get over calling someone a “good wife” being sexist. It’s been almost a month since I started working on this, and that one in particular still blows me away.

This is easily the largest single post I’ve ever made, and I’ve learned two things.

1 – The left will call absolutely anything racist or sexist. In fact, it’s gotten to where if I hear either of those words used – especially if they’re coming from a leftist – I immediately assume the person in question probably did nothing wrong. If Steve Jones is sexist, probably he was arguing with a liberal, and the liberal was losing the argument. I didn’t think this way before doing this list. I do think that way now.

2. – The absolute only counter argument anyone has ever provided for this page is not clicking the link, then using not-clicking-or-reading as a form of argument. I’ve literally posted this link twice in a thread before, then had someone say ask about calling Mexicans rapists.

^^^ I’ve actually had to resort to taking screen shots of numerous items on the list, and posting them as pics in threads, because people just refuse to click the link. Even when the featured image is of two women engaged in some BDSM stuff that the left loves, they simply avoid clicking on anything that might possibly contain information that threatens their little bubble (then claim republicans are “immune to facts”). I’ve not yet had anyone offer anything besides their complete ignorance as a counter. This is why I’ve decided to cut the list off at 50, rather than continue. Most people won’t read this page at all, and even Trump supporters have told me that this page was a bit too long for them to appreciate, way back when the list was only at around 40 or so.

And what happens when they ignore the link, mention something in the list, then I post a screen shot? They either go quiet and leave the thread, since I’m clearly a racist (as if that word means anything), or they block me. What these folks haven’t counted on is that I’m now starting to attend rallies where there’s no block button. That’s lead to some hilarious results so far. But in the meantime, I guess all I can do is hope that this page has at least some effect on people before the election.

Today we’ll be looking at #blacklivesmatter (BLM) – the movement, what it stands for, and it’s claims. As is usual with 4th Wavers, we’ll be covering tons of studies, statistics, data, facts, evidence, so you can link this post as a final resource anytime you find yourself in an online debate.

As most of us are aware, the BLM movement is primarily concerned with the treatment black people experience from the police, from experiencing violence to being unjustly shot and killed. But the movement also puts forward claims that go much further than that, and suggests that blacks are *disproportionately* targeted by the police – and mistreated by society at large – as a result of racism and racist beliefs on part of the people taking such actions. As stated on the BLM website:

.

—— —–

Black people are not inherently more violent or more prone to crime than other groups. But black people are disproportionately poorer, more likely to be targeted by police and arrested, and more likely to attend poor or failing schools. All of these social indicators place one at greater risk for being either a victim or a perpetrator of violent crime. To reduce violent crime, we must fight to change systems, rather than demonizing people.

—– —–

.

^ Now this is the official position put forward by the movement, so keep this in mind. We’ll come back to it later.

We’re also familiar with the long list of names of black people that were targeted and killed by the police, as well as images like this one.

But the central question here, and the point that is causing all the commotion, is whether or not black people are being targeted simply because they are black. The official position of BLM hints that they actually aren’t – they’re targeted because they’re disproportionately poorer, which is a “social indicator” that places them at greater risk. Again real important to keep this concept in mind, because that’s the central point that’s causing the argument, especially when it comes to #AllLivesMatter .

There is some truth to the idea that black people are poorer due to laws and decision making policy that was in place during the earlier part of the 20th century, and there are some specific examples of “white privilege” which are associated (white privilege is extremely rare, but individual examples do exist). But the movement isn’t only addressing evidence based critiques like this. Again, there are some extraordinary claims that come from the movement, linked with hashtags like #walkingwhileblack , #drivingwhileblack and #handsupdontshoot .

A study conducted by The Guardian shows over twice as many whites have been killed by police in 2016, casting serious doubt over the “shot because they’re black” claim. That’s a hell of a lot of white people also being shot. You can see the study here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database . “Proportionally”, however (blacks counted “per million”), we see that blacks are over twice as high as whites (we’ll see why in a second). It’s interesting to see that Native American ranks highest of all in terms of “proportionate”, because they make up only around 2% of the population, according to the Census Bureau. Blacks make up only around 6%. Yet for some reason, saying “all lives matter” – which include Native Peoples, Latinos, and Asians – all of which are linked here to pages demonstrating that they also are victimized by the police – is criticized as being racist.

Take a look at those stats we just covered. Now you really gonna pretend like your house is the only damn one on fire?

A common argument against “all lives matter” has often been comparing it to houses that are on fire. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/11/12136140/black-all-lives-matter <— see for yourself. This argument against “all houses matter” indicates that no other houses, except this one specific house or group of houses, experiences any fire. So is BLM just not understanding that other races exist and also experience these issues? Because every other race most certainly *does* experience police brutality (which here is the “fire”). The analogy simply does not carry over, since twice as many whites are shot by police according to the data we have on the subject, and the original argument was focused on blacks being targeted for being black, not simply being the only ones that ever experience this issue.

Moreover, no one is saying #BlackLivesMatter can’t be used, or isn’t valid. It’s perfectly fine to develop your own special interest group that focuses only on one given demographic. The problem is being told that #AllLivesMatter is racist and can’t be used, because blacks are targeted only for being black, and everyone else is targeted for some other reason. That just isn’t the case, which we’ll see in a bit.

And not to get into a point-by-point response with Vox (I think we all have better things to do), but in reply to number’s 4 and 5 on the Vox list linked above:

^^^ No, because other diseases also receive funding, and are being addressed at their own unique fundraisers. For example, there’s myasthenia gravis fundraisers, cystic fibrosis fundraisers, and so on. But imagine if you weren’t even allowed to *suggest* that one particular disease is a problem worth addressing, much less receive it’s own fundraiser or awareness, without being denounced for saying so. Or imagine if you couldn’t say “all diseases matter” and feel concern for anyone who falls ill or becomes sick, because doing so would make you a “diseasist” or whatever.

And again, no one is saying Cancer doesn’t matter, or you can’t have cancer awareness. But you *are* saying other diseases can’t be given their own consideration, or that we can’t show equal amounts of concern to others who are sick and dying.

^^^ ……………. actually yes. That is precisely what I would say. I would approach the people who are feeling bad, and tell them “I’m so sorry, I know how hard this is. I too have felt loss, so what you’re going through must be terrible.”

It’s not the #AllLivesMatter people who are turning this into a denouncement of others, as though social movements were analogous to a football game, where if someone isn’t routing for your team, then they have to be against you because they’re on a different team. This nonsensical “us vs them” mentality seems to have hijacked every social cause. It’s very possible to be concerned about other groups and also be concerned about your group.

I swear it’s like the people at Vox, Buzzfeed, and Cracked think this grade-school level wit is just so incredibly golden that there’s just *NO* counter argument that a person could think of within just a few seconds of thought.

Anyway back to those studies from earlier – now lets look at the reason *why* blacks are shot disproportionately more often. Is it “because they’re black”? If we look at the charts again (hopefully you still have them open in another tab), in 2015 we see similar numbers; almost twice as many whites as blacks shot and killed by the police, though the “proportion” is higher for blacks, as they make up less of the population. (Also, this refers to all whites and all blacks taken together as demographics. That’s really important, so keep that in mind, we’re going to come back to that in a second.)

Okay, so… why is that?

Remember that thing about how blacks live in poorer neighborhoods in the original BLM statement? Well this is unfortunately true – and it’s due to racist decisions that were made in the earlier part of the 20th century. These were things like what neighborhoods blacks could or couldn’t live in, and yes, that was definitely motivated by racism. As it turns out, those neighborhoods happened to end up a lot more poor, since society was “separate”, but certainly not equal. Many of these neighborhoods remain affected to this day, and according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, households at or below the poverty line will be involved with over twice as much crime. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5137 – it also shows blacks and whites have similar rates of violence when below the poverty line.

So this really isn’t about being black, it’s about being poor – just like we saw indicated in the original BLM statement.

This makes perfect sense. If black households are more often poor, and live in poorer neighborhoods, then crime will obviously happen more often in those areas, and provide more chances for police encounters.

Aside from addressing the obvious problems in this graph, how about programs aimed at getting police involved with the community they protect? How about an advisory board made up of members of that community to help facilitate relationship building? That might that be slightly more effective than chanting “pigs in a blanket – fry em like bacon”.

Now before we move on, 2 things.

1) Yes, you could argue that the current situation was created by racism that existed in the past, and is still a problem today. But this is a *lot* different than saying “police officers shot him because he was black”. I hope it’s clear now why that narrative, perpetuated by BLM, is simply not true.

2) Despite having more police encounters, when comparing encounters between each demographic (everyone who experienced a police encounter), rather than the entire white population vs the entire black population (the demographics mentioned earlier), we find that blacks are still not shot more often than whites. Again, this is comparing all police encounters with whites, and all police encounters with blacks, rather than “all whites” and “all blacks” everywhere. A meta analysis involving FIVE MILLION CASES – by a black researcher (if that matters) now reveals this to be the case.

Now that’s not downplaying the use of force, which is still definitely a problem. But the claim here was that they’re being targeted because they are black – and that’s simply not true. They are being targeted, but it’s *not* for being black.

Now lets touch again on the whole blacks-being-poor bit, which is the real story here, because it actually goes a hell of a lot deeper.

As mentioned, in the earlier part of the 20th century, racist housing policies controlled where blacks could and couldn’t live, thus forcing them into areas where they had fewer opportunities, and these areas became economically depressed. This in turn lead to a number of other important factors that persisted long after the original racial policies were changed. Blacks, as a demographic, now have a more difficult time getting into college or finding work opportunities – like the original BLM statement pointed out. Combine this with the lowered property value of black residential areas, and a black person will end up having a lower credit score, which severely affects several other parts of a person’s life, including the value of their savings and eligibility to receive a loan, which in turn affects how easily they can purchase a house or car. The key importance here is that while the system inadvertently makes things more difficult for black people, it is very possible that no one *IN* this system is actively racist, neither consciously nor subconsciously!!

SJW (social justice warrior) morons point to the higher asking price of a vehicle that a black person is trying to purchase and claim that it’s somehow “subconscious racism”. Right. As if the sales person is, on some subconscious level, thinking to himself “Oh boy! Blacky wants a car! Imma ask him for more money than he reasonably has because he’s black and doesn’t earn as much, and this makes perfect sense, given that I’m trying to make a sale and a higher asking price makes achieving that sale more difficult! Mwahahahaha!!!!” – and the sales person does this even if they’re black. Because of “internalized racism”. Or whatever cockamamie intellectual-sounding buzzword 3rd Wavers and SJWs are using to cover obvious plot holes in their “theory”.

The fact of the matter is, the sales person doesn’t care about skin colour, they care about credit score and other factors that go into buying a car, which are set by the bank. The bank doesn’t care about skin colour, they care about where you live, how long you’ve been employed, how many payments you’ve missed, etc. The housing authority doesn’t care about your skin colour, they only care about previous evictions, landlord-tenant law, and related considerations. Each person in the system is only doing their job. None of them are aware of the larger systemic problems. They are not themselves racist. They don’t hate blacks. They aren’t trying to keep whites in control. There is no secret agenda. It’s screwed up, but it’s not caused by white people secretly hating blacks and needing to “check their privilege”.

That nonsensical narrative that whites are the problem is only fostering an ideology of hate, rather than unity. That’s why we keep seeing crap like this:

First, the usual rhetoric nearly always ignores the very highly complex reality surrounding blacks and how their lives are affected by systemic disadvantages.

.

Second, aside from rarely ever addressing those problems, we get the impression that the solution is merely for every white person to hang their head in shame and constantly apologize for being white (“White people, appropriately take your place in the back”). It creates the narrative that the actual reason for all the shootings and other problems have nothing to do with what we discussed here, and is all simply because someone with white skin decided to shoot someone who had black skin, and for no other reason.

This in turn makes every white person sick to f*cking death of hearing about how they’re part of a problem merely for existing. The vast majority of white people aren’t racist at all. They’re normal human beings who just want the best for everyone. But I’ve even been told I’m racist just for *being* white, and I’d place a wager that most people reading this have been told that at some point too.

.

Pretty soon a black person gets angry because they’re convinced every white person is somehow at fault. Type “white people inherently racist” into google and look at how many results come up that I honestly don’t think are even worth replying to. This kind of mindset does nothing except create animosity and hatred, and makes the problem worse, not better.

.

This is exasperated even further by telling a person with white skin that they’re somehow not allowed to have an opinion – unless of course their opinion just happens to agree with you. Remember when whites said that to blacks? Remember how frustrating it was, and how there was a word used to describe that kind of sentiment? Began with an “R”? Take all the time you need.

.

This is ultimately where the problems originate with #blacklivesmatter . People aren’t disagreeing with your movement because they’re racist. You’ve simply turned disagreement into a qualifier for being racist.

.

Whites are not racist by default. They’re just sick of being told they are. And the problem here isn’t “because you’re black”. And it isn’t “because they’re white”. It’s because of complex multifaceted socio-economic causes that too often end up getting ignored. And instead of actually thinking your way through it all, you find it easier to stick to your hateful and simplistic blame-people-who-aren’t-like-me narrative.

Austin GalanteAnd off the top of my head, telling Megan Kelly that “she must have blood coming out of her whatever”, is a pretty fucking sexist thing to say to a woman; simply for giving his winey ass questions he didn’t like.
That is a demeaning way to put her down when he was getting real questions that made him look bad.

Athena BrownWhat I don’t get is how Trump can insult literally *EVERYONE* who is male, and insult them in every creative way he can think of, over and over again until they start dropping out of the race:

No, my friend… that’s equality. If you can’t stand up and take the hits like the men do, and you need special coddling, then you’re in the wrong business.

I’m a woman, and could run as an Oregon state representative. I don’t. Why? Because I know I don’t have what it takes. I don’t want to handle *that* level of heat day in and day out – waking up each day and seeing half the city calling me vile names just because I’m with one party or the other. But if I did run for a seat, then I absolutely would expect every bit of what the men get, because that’s what equality is all about. If you can’t take the hits, get out of the race. I believe in equality, so I don’t think women get special treatment, or need to have their hands held every step of the way. Hillary doesn’t. Sarah doesn’t. Jill doesn’t. Trump could – and does – insult them, but they can take it.

Nicole GreazelNow Athena, I know you’re going to deny all of this or else not want to read any of the articles but here is evidence of everything from this picture. And let’s not forget about him mocking a reporter with a disability. How you can still defend him baffles me.

Athena Brown>> Now Athena, I know you’re going to deny all of this or else not want to read any of the articles

^^^ What the actual f*ck…. please show me one single debate I’ve ever been in during my entire **history** on facebook where I haven’t read an article someone else posted as evidence. Hell at LEAST 9 times out of 10 I read the article and the person who’s posting it hasn’t.

>> but here is evidence of everything from this picture.

^^^ Yea you posted like 6 different links at once, so it’s going to take a while.

>> And let’s not forget about him mocking a reporter with a disability. How you can still defend him baffles me.

^^^ First that’s not an example of racist or sexist, so it doesn’t actually answer the challenge I posted. Second, Trump says he didn’t know the person was disabled. If he did know, then yea that was a real crap thing to do, sure. But the question was still about him being racist or sexist.

Further: Trump maintains he didn’t know the person he was referring to was disabled, and this is a reasonable defense. It’s possible he was just mocking him, the way he would mock anyone else, and the person just happened to also be disabled.

But okay, lets consider for a moment that Trump vividly recalled this specific person was disabled and was deliberately going to make fun of his disability, completely removed from all other things being said at that moment. That’s not racist, it’s not sexist, and although it would be considered crude and immature, it’s not enough to switch my vote over to a manipulative liar who’s rigged the democratic elections from the beginning. So moving on.

>> *Second Link*

——————
Late last month, on “Good Morning America,” “CBS This Morning,” and other political talk shows, Marco Rubio called Donald Trump “a con artist.”
——————

^^^ Oh now THERE’S a good source! Rubio, who was fighting with Trump viciously for the nomination, and got beat in his own state. Yea, I’m sure this guy is going to be totally unbiased and present only the evidence.

Here’s another:

———————
Rubio implied that Trump’s Presidential campaign was another instance of intentional deception. It’s a message we’ve heard not just from Rubio, but from Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney, as well as various pundits.
———————

^^^ Okay, so his opponents called him a con artist. Therefore, he is.

Now lets look at what Hillary’s opponents have called her, and believe everyone one of them without question, shall we? Because we know those are unbiased sources we can trust.

One more:

———————-
A grifter takes advantage of a person’s confidence for his own specific ends—ends that are often unknowable to the victim and unrelated to the business at hand. He willfully deceives a mark into handing over his trust under false pretenses. He has a plan. What ultimately sets con artists apart is their intent.
———————-

^^^ Sorry but this describes Hillary to a T. Lets move on.

>> *Third Link*

———————-
But there’s only one truly massive liar in this race: Donald Trump. When Politico attempted to measure how many lies Trump told over the course of 4.6 hours of speeches, they found that he lied, on average, once every five minutes. When Huffington Post catalogued his lies over the course of just one town hall event, they came up with 71 lies.
———————-

^^^ Alright, lets consider I’m having a discussion about the American revolutionary war.

Now……….. did I **LIE** about when the war ended? Or was I simply wrong? Because I’d say I was wrong. Now if I knew the war ended in 1783, and was deliberately telling you on purpose that it ended 1776 because I was trying to GET something from you – well that would describe Hillary, not Trump.

Trump is wrong a lot because he doesn’t research the facts before he speaks. Once elected, this can be fixed, as he’ll be surrounded by people whose job it is to do that very research.

Hillary f*ing LIES. She knows what she’s saying isn’t true, but will say it anyway. She’ll change her position to whatever she thinks will get votes. She’ll promise anyone anything. THAT is what makes a liar a liar. That can’t be fixed by having knowledgeable people around you either.

^^^ He was referring to Muslims from the middle east. You heard about the terror attacks in France lately? … or Germany? Does Brussels ring a bell? Can you figure out why the UK left the EU? Are other European countries on high alert because thy think it’s fun?

That truck that drove through and killed 80 people last week?

…………….. NONE of that makes a convincing argument for why Muslims from that area ought to be halted until we have a better vetting process? I mean sure you can disagree and that’s fine. I hear ya. “Let them in no matter what – it’s our principle!” I disagree, though I can see where you’re coming from.

But please don’t feed me this racist xenophobic BS. There are solid reasons behind wanting this to happen.

Also, that part about Trump being surrounded by experts to do the research? Well that happened – which is why Trump has recently changed his position, and is now more accepting of allowing immigrants from that region. After all, his original statements included “. . . until we can figure out what’s going on!”

>> 2. ‘I’m a negotiator like you folks’

^^^ This is listed as “most offensive thing ever”. Suuuuuuuure it is.

And we’re talking about Jews here.

Most. Offensive. Thing. You can say about Jews. Is that they’re negotiators.

I … you… just… posiahfqpehfpiwuehywuerhwsdf okay.

>> “Is there anyone in this room who doesn’t negotiate deals?” he joked.

^^^ Because joking about being a good negotiator IS ABSOLUTELY THE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED TO JEWS OMFG SERIOUSLY YOU GUYS WHY DOES HE NOT JUST CHANGE HIS NAME TO ADOLF TRUMP RIGHT NOW!!!

I swear to f*ing god the desperation to vilify this man is so incredible that people just don’t know when to quit.

^^^ Entirely true. I’m still waiting for even 2 examples of this man ever doing or saying anything that was racist.

>> 5. ‘Laziness is a trait in blacks’

^^^ There’s no verification that Trump ever said this. It appears in a book that was written by a former disgruntled employee of Trump that hated him and had an axe to grind. The book is filled with all sorts of filth about Trump that you might expect from someone trying to get revenge on him, and is based on hearsay and pure demonizing.

>> 6. ‘a well-educated black’

^^^ I’m going to go ahead and move on to the next link, this is getting silly.

See the link above. They like to be called “blacks” – which makes perfect sense. After all, I’m not a European American…. I’m white.

And sure. Being “well-educated” is the most offensive thing you can say about someone. This page is no longer worth my time, so I’m moving on.

>> *Fifth Link*

——————-
Trump trumped his prior statements on Islam with his most incendiary proposal to date: a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
——————-

Athena BrownLast one. After this you can tell me how I didn’t read any of your links, didn’t respond to anything you said, “just won’t’ listen”, lalala – pretty much what everyone else says once everything has been systematically gone through and addressed and they’ve got nothing left to say.

>> *Sixth Link*

> First “insult”

—————–
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
—————–

^^^ Now, explain to me how this means “Mexican’s are rapist”.

Because I’m reading here that there are rapist in Mexico, and Mexico’s economic and judicial policies are creating an environment where their criminals are wanting to cross into the United States.

Trump is acknowledging that some of these are good people. He’s said utterly nothing about Mexicans living in Mexico.

Now, if you know of ANOTHER source where he said “Mexicans are rapist”, please show me and I’ll change my mind. Or if you can show me 2 other examples, anywhere, at any time, from any place you’d like, of Trump being either racist or sexist, I’ll change my mind then too.

I guess until then, because I’m daring to ask the questions and have an open mind, that I’ll just have to be a racist.

> Second “insult”

——————-
Sit down, you weren’t called
——————-

^^^ Uh… okay? If you weren’t called and it’s not your turn, then you can’t just talk anyway because you’re a special snowflake and you feel like it. Raise your hand and wait your turn like everyone else.

——————
Go back to Univision
——————

^^^ ……………. and?… like, did this guy actually work for Univision? I’m not seeing the insult here.

——————
Do you think Trump was communicating with security to have you thrown out?
——————

^^^ If you are disrupting the conference, then yes, Trump has every goddam right to throw you out. You can’t stand there and ask questions OVER another reporter who is ALSO trying to ask a question. For f*cks sake.

> Third “insult”

[mocking disability] – we talked about this one. Scroll up.

> Fourth “insult”

^^^ [Total and complete shut down of Muslims] – we talked about this one. Scroll up.

> Fifth insult (no air quotes this time)

——————–
“He’s not a war hero” [John McCain, who was captured]
——————–

^^^ Okay, legit point this time. That was out of line. This definitely counts against Trump.

See if you found a BUNCH of them like this, that would be a persuasive reason to change my mind and switch my vote. But finding a legitimate problem once in a blue moon, when you compare this to Hillary, makes it no contest. Trump is simply the better choice by a long shot. I can put up with a president who occasionally says something off base.

> Sixth “insult”

[Trump makes a beautiful point here that he’s only against ILLEGAL immigration]

^^^ Why is this one even included in the list? This isn’t an insult at all. This is actually helping Trump’s case.

> Seventh and Eigth “insult”

[Insulting Megan Kelly and Rosie O’Donald]

^^^ So Trump can talk smack about literally every man he sees, but when he insults a woman, that’s sexism?

Sorry, I think men and women are equal. If you’re going to work in politics, you’re going to have some heat thrown your way. Now if Trump can insult literally all the male candidates over and over and call them all sorts of vicious names, and no one bats and eye, then he says something about a woman and that’s “sexist” – you’ll get why feminism is no longer about equality. If you need special coddling, you’re in the wrong business.

^^^ Thankfully Rand is male. If he were female, that’d be SEXIST and it would mean he HATES WOMEN.

===================================================

Annnnnnnd that last post didn’t make it. When I tried to hit enter, it came back with that “cannot post” message, and of course at this point I know exactly what that means. I’m basically saving just about every thread I get into at this point.

The article is claiming that having trans women compete in the Olympics would be unfair to cis-women for the reason that trans women, having been men most of their lives, would have advantages over women.

However, a considerable number doctors and researchers from different committees have ruled that a transgender female athlete on HRT does not have any real advantages over a normal female athlete.

The article itself does not offer up any documented counter evidence. It simply says:

—————————>> It is simply inconceivable that athletes who have spent most of their lives as men wouldn’t have greater muscle mass, skeletal growth, and lung capacity than someone born female
—————————

^^^ It might (not) interest our readers to know that I just happened to specialized in biomechanics for 10 years. A woman’s lung capacity increases with training, the same way a man’s does. A woman’s heart also undergoes the same kind of hypertrophy and other adaptations, as does the rest of her circulatory system. Now I’ve never personally studied the differences between trans and non-trans athletes, so while this seems intuitive, I don’t need to rely on my own expertise; the doctors and researchers who are on these different committees should be intimately aware of all these factors, and have reached their conclusions based on well established fitness science.

Also from the article:

————————–>> Sadly, feminism is not in a position to fight the IOC, because the movement has bought into the doctrine of intersectionality, which dictates that transgender persons constitute a victimized group whose wishes must be granted at all costs.
————————–

^^^ Opinions of feminism aside – we know transgender athletes are on the same level as highly trained cis-females, because as stated, we have had independent researchers look into this, and it was a decision reached through careful study of the issue.

………… or at least, that’s what I thought.

The counter argument, summed up, appears to be that a trans-woman, after only a year on HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy), would still have significant advantages over a cis-woman (cis stands for “comfortable in skin”, which is another way of saying someone who isn’t transgender). You can see a full debate on this subject here: https://www.facebook.com/P.Allebone/posts/521237044730306 – where I started out with many of the same points I just listed here.

This debate ended with the following:

^^^ To which I thought, “Not a problem!” – and went googling away.

Again, for those of you trying to follow what this is about:

The question is whether or not allowing a trans woman on only 1 year of HRT is fair to non-trans women, due to advantages that the trans-woman will have from being male most of their life.

The pro-trans side says it’s fair, because there are no advantages.

The anti-trans side says it isn’t fair, as they would have advantages.

My position is that it’s fair because numerous independent researchers associated with different official committees have made that ruling and would obviously have the evidence to make such a ruling.

So lets get looking!

According to The Guardian: “International Olympic Committee medical officials said on Sunday they changed the policy to adapt to current scientific, social and legal attitudes on transgender issues.”

^^^ Definitely a consensus among the medical community! But to avoid an Argument from Authority fallacy, we need the actual research that results in such a consensus. I’m positive we’ll find a controlled study somewhere comparing cis-women to trans-women.

According to Outsports: “Outsports has obtained a copy of the transgender guidelines the International Olympic Committee is expected to adopt before the Summer Olympics later this year. The guidelines stem from an unpublicized “Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism” the IOC held last November.”

^^^ Aha! A lead! Now we’re cooking! For sure I’m going to get a PDF with a longitudinal study with empirical evidence that will shut this whole thing down.

————->> Since the 2003 Stockholm Consensus on Sex Reassignment in Sports, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of autonomy of gender identity in society, as reflected in the laws of many jurisdictions worldwide.
————–

………………………….. uh……. wait, what?

…………. weren’t we going to talk about trans women competing against cis-women? Because… that’s what all those news sources are using this citation for. I mean read that last one from Outsports again – the new guidelines stem from this very paper.

————->> B. There are also, however, jurisdictions where autonomy of gender identity is not recognised in law at all.

>> C. It is necessary to ensure insofar as possible that trans athletes are not excluded from the opportunity to participate in sporting competition.
————-

^^^ Okay so this has more to do with letting trans women compete than settling the question of whether or not it’s actually fair for cis-women.

In fact, more from that Outsports source I quoted a moment ago:

>> “Joanna Harper, chief medical physicist, radiation oncology, Providence Portland Medical Center, was one of the people at that meeting. She also happens to be trans, and she said her voice in the room was important in determining these guidelines.”

^^^ Okay yea… this is definitely an issue that’s aimed at only letting trans-women compete without settling the issue of whether or not that’s actually fair. In fact, Harper goes on to state: “This matches up with the NCAA rules and is as good as anything.”

As good as anything??? The NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) is not accredited by any recognizing body, and has no legal authority over any sporting agency or activity. They’re free to simply make up whatever rules they want on any issue they please, and are not obligated to follow any medically established protocols or procedures. Also, you can see those very rules being referenced here: https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/Transgender_Handbook_2011_Final.pdf

From page 9 on PDF reader:

———————>>Concern about creating an “unfair competitive advantage” on sex-separated teams is one of the most often cited reasons for resistance to the participation of transgender student-athletes. This concern is cited most often in discussions about transgender women competing on a women’s team.

>> These concerns are based on three assumptions: one, that transgender women are not “real” women and therefore not deserving of an equal competitive opportunity; two, that being born with a male body automatically gives a transgender woman an unfair advantage when competing against non-transgender women; and three, that men might be tempted to pretend to be transgender in order to compete in competition with women.
———————

^^^ First assumption is nonsense – whether or not trans women are “real women” is completely besides the point. That’s a totally separate issue, and has nothing to do with whether or not there’s an unfair competitive advantage.

Third assumption is even more nonsense. You cannot put on a dress, say you’re a woman, and call yourself trans. While the NCAA file does go on to explain this, it’s still not addressing the central concern – competitive advantage of trans women over cis-women. It seems the NCAA simply wanted to include this soap-box social justice rhetoric in their article.

The second assumption – that of an unfair competitive advantage – is never answered. The paper does not go on to fully address whether or not this is or isn’t the case, because it references only women who transition before puberty, and this is not the same ruling that the Olympic Committee is making. So professor Joanna Harper is just flat out wrong in saying that their ruling “matches up” with the NCAA guidelines.

You know… I was really hoping I’d find some research justifying the Olympic Committee’s decision. And you can tell – just go click on the debate thread I linked. I thought I was making a pretty good case. But here it turns out it’s just another SJW cause focused on including trans women without addressing the very legitimate criticisms that naturally come from doing such a thing. And I’m guessing that criticism will never be addressed, since even bringing it up will no doubt be met with the usual tactics.

Anyway there’s one last source we haven’t run through. It’s the 2003 Stockholm report that was referenced in the 2015 report. Wanna take a wild stab on what it’s findings were? If you said “it’s only fair that trans-women can compete” – then you’ve been paying attention.

——————->>The group recommends that individuals undergoing sex reassignment from male to female after puberty (and the converse) be eligible for participation in female or male competitions, respectively, under the following conditions:
——————-

^^^ It’s never addressed whether or not trans female athletes genuinely have an advantage over cis-female athletes.

The Conclusion

It’s very possible that trans-women do not have any advantages over cis-women after a year on HRT. However, without evidence backing up that assertion, there’s no way we here at 4th Wavers can support that decision. 4th Wave Feminism is evidence based. This means decisions change only if that’s what the evidence supports, and also change if no evidence supporting an assertion can be found (as was the case here).

It’s extremely unfortunate that the Olympic Committee is basing it’s decisions on what happens to be popular in the media, and not on actual science. Given that multiple agencies appear to be jumping on the bandwagon here with no research backing them up does give the impression that such policies are only being instituted because they’re popular.

Yea, as you might expect from the title, this one’s gonna be filled with Anita Sarkeesian style antics.

This one was particularly difficult for me, as it involved a good friend of mine from the LGBT “community”, who I supported and gave encouragement to, and even shared several facebook groups with. But apparently that means nothing when you question the SJW narrative that mandates white guilt.

The thing of is though… this isn’t just any white-shaming. This was, and I’m dead serious…. “Mario is white, and that helped you get a job, so you’re privileged!” Go ahead and read below. That’s seriously the argument. I was smart enough to start saving the thread right from the start.

In this particular debate, I was *extra* nice about it, deciding to be as polite as I could be, and simply ask questions about the points put forward. Apparently even THAT is just too much, and my friend decided to block me. That was really the point I decided that I could no longer be a part of that community anymore. This is beyond ridiculous.

I am trying to think of playable video game characters who fit these parameters: Human, not white, not Asian; and I am having a really hard time. I never realized before that there really aren’t many, and I definitely think that is due to my white privilege.

Comments

Sarah Cazee-Widhalm Also from AC: Connor Kenway, Aveline de Grandpre, and Adewale. Aveline and Adewale were the main characters of the DLC games that were released alongside the main game for their respective years.

Athena Brown[And here’s where the fun starts!] I would have to strongly disagree with the white privilege idea. When you asked that question, my very first thought was Punch-Out. Crazy characters from all over the globe, including the original Mike Tyson himself (honestly not sure how Glass Joe being white gives me any sort of privilege in my day-to-day life).

Athena Brown Yea, I disagree that having a white character in a video game fits the definition of privilege, which is “an advantage granted to a group of people, usually due to some immutable factor, to which other people are not entitled”. Mario being white does not help me get a job or help me get housing. He doesn’t reduce my bills or make it easier to see a doctor. [Now keep a close eye on how polite I’m going to be about this from here on out. Amie was a good friend of mine, so unlike some of the other debates, my tone for the rest of this is carefully measured. I approach this by asking questions, and asking for evidence.]

I didn’t say white privilege doesn’t exist. If you can demonstrate, for example, evidence showing that a white person gets less sentencing for the same crime, that would be an “advantage” – and if its for no other reason than he’s white, that would be an “immutable factor”. That would fit the definition of “privilege”.

The presence of one instance of something happening does not preclude the existence of it happening elsewhere, and each individual assertion carries it’s own burden of proof.

Amie Annsa Having white video game characters be the majority of characters is really a form of privlige as that helps to reinforce the idea that white is the normal and the default. Its the same with PoC representation in any art/media form. I never really thought about it because I am white and with that I am shielded from thinking about why there aren’t more depictions of people like me in media (not including the whole trans thing). It does overall lead to discrimination against people of color in subtle ways that people don’t realize as people in positions of power (hiring positions for example) [There you go. Mario being white leads to me getting hired. Now lets ask some innocent questions regarding this claim and see what happens.] also see white people and their norms (think about what’s considered professional) as being more of the standard and baseline.

Chastity Julian Actually white privilege also falls into having something more readily available because of your race. In this case it’s non white playable main characters for video games. You’re white so this is your white privilege making you blind to this but people really enjoy having relatable characters in their media. And their race being represented in the media.
Part of that PRIVILEGE we as white people have is the ability to be anyone in a videogame because of our race. We have the privilege of not being more commonly reduced to thugs or back up characters in media.

Athena Brown I’m pretty sure people understand that being black is normal though. I’m also not connecting the claim of being seen as normal with any actual advantage received, which is a necessary part of being privileged.

Can you demonstrate evidence that white people in video games contributes to discrimination against PoC?

>> Actually white privilege also falls into having something more readily available because of your race.

^^^ Privilege *must* include “advantage”. If poison mushrooms were more readily available to my race, that wouldn’t be a privilege. Why? Because it is not an advantage. The advantage has to be there for it to be a privilege.

>> You’re white so this is your white privilege making you blind to this

^^^ Sure. That’s why I’m asking for evidence. Maybe I really *DON’T* know. [Like I said, very measured.] So I’m taking the definition of the word “privilege”, and asking where the advantage is according to your claims.

>> but people really enjoy having relatable characters in their media.

^^^ I can relate to Leonardo from the TMNT, and he’s not even human. So this claim doesn’t stand.

>> Part of that PRIVILEGE we as white people have is the ability to be anyone in a videogame because of our race.

^^^ Really? Athena Brown can be in a video game?

Because I don’t think Mario is white, Athena is white, therefore, Athena is in a video game really works.

>> I wouldn’t bother arguing with her; anyone whose opinion she doesn’t like she just publicly shames on her MRA blog

Chastity Julian I stopped reading at you claiming as a white person you are so sure people know being black is normal. [Now keep this one mind. Being black isn’t “normal”.] Like, I’m sure as a white person you know exactly what it’s like being black. I’m fucking dying laughing.

Athena Brown ^ So if I went outside right now, and asked people “is being black normal”…….. what would they say?[Everyone reading this, please leave your feedback. Do most of you think black people are normal? Is it really me being blind to my white priivlege that makes me think we live in a world where they’re normal, but no one else except me, and others who are “blind-by-privilege” think so?]

Because I’ll actually do that with a camera phone and youtube it. I’m extremely confident I know what people will say. I’m willing to bet a side of you also does, and you’re just being contrary.

Chastity Julian I’d have to strongly AGREE to the white privilege thing. Sure there are a bunch of fighter game characters that aren’t white/Asian but most video games in which there is only one main character they are white, second most Asian. In the fighter games, in my opinion, the other diversities are just so they have more character types, but still MOST or white/Asian. You could also say any sports video games have non white/Asian, but hey those are actually MORE REALISTIC because they are based on actual people and teams. Shock.
Chell from Portal is said to be Hawaiian because she is modeled after Hawaiian actress Alésia Glidewell, though I’m not sure if that’s confirmed.
I’m surprised no one said Skyrim, but I guess they aren’t real races…?
The Prince of Persia game guy..?
Is Mario white? I mean, he’s white but does that count?
I honestly can’t think of any others…

Sofia Alexander You get a character, actually countless characters that you can more easily identify with and empathize with, and you don’t have to imagine yourself as something you’re not in order to put yourself in their boots, so to speak.

Chastity Julian You have the advantage of being white and whining that something that is heavily white isn’t helping you get a job. Boo hoo.
But do you know what? There are other people in the world! So lets bring up an idea of other humans and other jobs than your line of work, shall we?
You can look up TONS of reports of people in the specific line of creating video games. First off, white people and Asians STILL get these jobs more than any other race in America. Past that if someone tries to create a video game with a non white/Asian main character it’s REALLY unlikely to go through, and even less likely to be popular. You can look this up OR you can just look at the lack of titles there are for this. It’s really obvious.
And you? It does personally help you. Having everything white washed makes your race less scary, and more relatable to the common other person. You aren’t as heavily stereotyped and even if you are, hell, there a billions of other characters to wash that one away. So when you walk into an interview, you’re your own person. You’re not a stereotype people see over and over as back up, not so great, characters in media. So yes, it helps you. Congrats.
I also think it’s funny you clearly didn’t read the original post well at all. Because you’re fighting that lots of white characters aren’t privilege (which is laughable) but the original post was of her saying she PROBABLY DIDN’T NOTICE because of HER PRIVILEGE. Not even that it was a privilege in the first place. Yuk yuk yuk.

Athena Brown[Notice how I’m responding point by point, with the “>>” being copy pasted from her, and the “^^^” being my reply]

>> You get a character, actually countless characters that you can more easily identify with and empathize with, and you don’t have to imagine yourself as something you’re not

^^^ I don’t have to imagine myself as something I’m not?

Okay, so… Mario is an Italian Plumber.

… but because he’s white… and I’m white… I don’t have to imagine I’m an Italian Plumber? … because I’m neither Italian, nor a plumber. So if I wanted to imagine myself as being him…

I’m reallyyyyyyyy not seeing how you’re connecting the logic on that one. I’m a mental health worker and social researcher. I’m not aware of any video game character who fits that description, so if I wanted to imagine I was any of them, I would most certainly be imagining myself to be something I’m not.

Which is actually part of the fun. It wouldn’t be fun at all to imagine I am something that I already am.

>> You have the advantage of being white and whining that something that is heavily white isn’t helping you get a job.

^^^ Well first, disagreeing with you is not an advantage that only I have for being white. In the US, everyone of every race has their freedom of speech protected. So again, this claim also does not stand.

You’re making the claim that a video game character being white gives me an advantage. I’m asking you what that advantage is. I used getting a job as an example. If I do have some kind of advantage – and thus, privilege – please do point it out to me. I really want to know.

>> But do you know what? There are other people in the world! So lets bring up an idea of other humans and other jobs than your line of work, shall we?

^^^ Sure. Show me how I have an advantage that other people do not, and how I got that advantage from video game characters being white please.

>> You can look up TONS of reports of people in the specific line of creating video games. First off, white people and Asians STILL get these jobs more than any other race in America.

^^^ So you’re saying people get jobs making video games, and the reason is because video game characters are white?

Okay, interesting claim. Do you have a study I can look at? A published report? Statistics? I would really be interested to see that claim validated.

Unfortunately, claims made without evidence are dismissed without evidence. Sorry bout that.

>> Past that if someone tries to create a video game with a non white/Asian main character it’s REALLY unlikely to go through, and even less likely to be popular.

^^^ Would absolutely LOVE to see the evidence on that one! Links please?

>> You can look this up OR

^^^ Whoa whoa whoa! Hold up there!

You might wanna look up how the whole “Burden of Proof” thingy works. Here’s a helpful link: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof – the one making the claim has the burden of proof. So it’s you who’s gotta cough up those reports.

That’s how you get your claim accepted.

>> And you? It does personally help you.

^^^ Great! How?

>> Having everything white washed makes your race less scary, and more relatable to the common other person.

So if your claim were true, how did all of this happen? Whites don’t appear to be less scary at all.In fact, there’s the proud black man, the proud Asian man, the proud Mexican, the proud lesbian, and the proud white.

Which one of those is racist? Without me telling you, and with no other information, which is it?

Long and short of it – I’m not seeing how having white video game character makes me less scary. But you’re certainly free to respond back with any of those studies you referred to earlier.

>> So when you walk into an interview, you’re your own person. You’re not a stereotype people see over and over as back up, not so great, characters in media.

^^^ Another interesting claim. How do you know that?[About as polite as I’ve ever been during one of these. And she blocked me anyway.]

>> So yes, it helps you. Congrats.

^^^ Evidence, and I’ll change my mind.

>> I also think it’s funny you clearly didn’t read the original post well at all. Because you’re fighting that lots of white characters aren’t privilege (which is laughable) but the original post was of her saying she PROBABLY DIDN’T NOTICE because of HER PRIVILEGE.

^^^ Right, and I disagree with the notion of privilege. I did read her post. I’m just disagreeing with that part. It’s also very possible that you don’t notice things simply because you’ve always seen them and gotten used to them. Ever put something down then forget where it was?

Chastity Julian I like the part where you rant on and on but totally don’t listen to any of my points. [And there you go. I literally just answered her >> points ^^^ in >> line ^^^ by >> line ^^^ fashion. It looks like she didn’t even read what I posted. She just saw a bunch of text, considered it a rant, and didn’t even look at it before concluding I didn’t listen.] Like when I say it does help you then EXPLAIN HOW and you just reply “HOW?” [One of your claims was that I’m more likely to get jobs because video game characters are white. That’s not explaining how, that’s an utterly ridiculous statement and only increases the question of “how”] Like, are you for real bro? [Sis] Fucking dying laughing. So I’m not gonna rely to any of yours. Please tell me where you work so I can eagerly avoid it and help others avoid it. I’d really hate for you to be the one giving advice to someone. And please stop calling yourself a feminist when you are clearly a racist [Remember earlier when she said black people aren’t normal? Now I’m the racist.]. No true feminist can be a racist. And yes, whining about how you don’t have white privilege makes you a racist in my book .
Also there is a wiki page on how to drink your own piss, doesn’t mean it’s gonna convince the masses it isn’t a bunch of bullshit. [“I can find a website that has false information on it. Therefore any links you posted are also false.”]http://www.wikihow.com/Drink-Urine-(Urophagia)

So that’s that. Mario being white helped me get hired at my current job. Because he’s white, I’m seen as “normal”, so I got hired (despite being a transgender woman – and my skills, experience, and qualifications apparently had nothing to do with it). And if I ask for an explanation as to how that even makes sense, that’s enough for a good friend to block me.

I no longer count myself as being part of the LGBT community, as I’m beginning to see that this community is just as intolerant as 3rd Wavers and SJWs in general.

I attended the Pride March in June, where I got to hear speaker after speaker explain to me how oppressed I was, and how the reason I can’t get hired is because of my identity (I’m already hired and love my job, but hey that’s probably only because Mario and Luigi were white). I was told that because I transitioned, I’ll now get paid 77 cents for every dollar I used to get paid (as a man I got $10.00 per hour, I’m now making well over $13 per hour). And of course, I was told how everyone hates me for being trans (except the only time I see people hating me is when I disagree with them over this kind nonsense).

Around 2 weeks ago, I had another good friend who I protested trans discrimination at Multnomah University with block me simply for asking how I, living in Portland, was a victim of the Orlando shootings, when I’m 2,000 miles away, and wasn’t shot. I mean I understand the reason to feel bad. But victim??… Aren’t the victims the ones that got shot? Asking the question is all it took to get blocked. The very next day, another trans person who I worked with at an employment agency here in Portland had called me out and tagged me on her wall telling me I was “cruel” for asking the question. I’ve been unfriended or blocked by so many others that I haven’t been keeping track, but it was that time getting blocked 2 weeks ago that made me re-think where I stood, and this incident that has definitely made it clear.

We are not actually a community. You’re only allowed to remain in if you agree with the faith based dogma. There’s a lot you must agree with, on faith, with no evidence and despite any contradictory evidence, and asking questions is forbidden. That’s hardly what I’d call a community, and definitely not something I’d want to be a part of anyway.

So it seems #HeterosexualPrideDay has been trending lately. And if you’ve read most of the stuff about it on the internet so far, you’d come to the conclusion that it’s a huge problem caused by bigotry and homophobia.

But first, what *is* Heterosexual Pride Day? How did it start, who’s running the show, and what is the actual intent?

What Exactly Is ‘Straight Pride’?

A google search reveals only page after page of mocking the idea. It’s difficult to track down any actual sources that explain what the day is actually about. One might think just from what’s already out there, that there is something very seriously wrong with the idea of heterosexuals feeling any sense of pride, given how everyone is reacting to it. Why else would something be considered so terribly wrong, before anyone even discusses what it is? It’s obvious that straights aren’t allowed to feel proud about who they are, right? I mean it’s not like they’re people too, and entitled to feeling the full range of human emotions that everyone else feels.

But hang on, surely we’re missing something here. Straight Pride just *can’t* be about feeling the same type of inner peace and connectedness with one’s community that gays feel. There has to be something more sinister going on. I mean, it’s not like the LGBT community is now criminalizing other groups the same way LGBT people were treated for so long. So what is Heterosexual Pride Day then?

As it turns out, there might not actually even be such a day, at least not one recognized anywhere. The BBC has done a piece on this, and they were not able to track down any official day, or organization, or even a group of people who are actively and consistently promoting this event. That article hyperlinks to this one, referencing events and rallies that have been held in the past. However, the Unicorn site being linked also does nothing but mock the idea, while it desperately to connect Straight Pride Day to individual acts of homophobia by high school students.

I mean really, from the first paragraph under their 2001 heading:

—– —–In 2001, a high school in St. Paul, Minnesota set up “safe zones” in which homophobia would not be tolerated. Furious at his school’s blatant intolerance of intolerance, the student proudly held a one-man hetero rights demonstration by donning a T-shirt with the words “Straight Pride” on the front.
—– —–

^ Honestly, what does that even have to do with straight pride day? Someone else, somewhere else, is straight, and also homophobic. Therefore, straight pride day has to be homophobic? I mean, it just *HAS* to be? Because there are straight people who are homophobic – so that just PROVES straight pride day has to be homophobic too?

How most 3rd Wavers reach their conclusions

You know, some black folks commit crimes. Therefore, Black History Month – yea forget it, I’m not even finishing. That logic only works if you’re white, straight, or male (works best if you’re all 3).

The BBC article also links to this article by Pink News, where one person actually did organize a rally! Lets see what he has to say about it. I’m sure we’ll see nothing but the blatant homophobia that totally justifies all the horrible demonization, and we can just move on.

From the article:

—– ——Creating a public Facebook event, he [Anthony Rebello] wrote: “We all have the right to celebrate the way of life we have chosen for ourselves. In the name of equality & equal rights, I have created this event to celebrate our right to be heterosexual, and to encourage younger heterosexuals that they should be proud of their heterosexuality.”
—– —–

^ …….. um…. o… kay? Sooooo… he thought straight folks ought to feel good about themselves, just like gays ought to feel good about themselves. That’s… literally what he said. He even mentioned equality and equal rights.

So, what’s the problem with this? Why is the LGBT community so outraged? There has to be more to this. Again, it would be with breathtakingly exasperation to find out that the very people who were told they couldn’t feel proud of themselves or hold events in public are now telling other groups that they can’t feel proud of themselves or hold events in public.

An Interview With A Straight Pride Organizer

4th Wavers decided to reach out to Anthony Rebello, the organizer of the straight pride event linked above. Below are the questions we asked Anthony, and he was kind enough to provide us some very thorough responses.

1. In July of last year, you decided to start the first Heterosexual Pride parade. Roughly how many did you invite to attend, and how did you invite them?

2. What were the events that lead up to you deciding to create this event? Was there any “aha” moment where this came to mind?

Anthony: I noticed that many different kinds of people were celebrating their sexual preference/nationalities/beliefs/opinions, so I decided I would also celebrate my own beliefs by being #ProudToBe a Heterosexual.

As someone who supports #EqualRights, I saw no problem with celebrating the fact that I am Heterosexual. In many ways, the #LGBTQ inspired me to do so. I have shown my support for the gay community. I have been to Pride parades. I used to live downtown Seattle. I have many gay friends. I figured the #LGBTQ would support the fact that I was just as happy to be Heterosexual as they are to be gay/transgender/bi… That wasn’t the case. I was labeled a bigot, white supremacist, member of isis… Harassed, insulted, even threatened. I even lost my job because of it. Here is a link to the backlash.

3. Are you against gays and lesbians having their own pride day? What about gays and lesbians in general?

Anthony: Not at all. I believe everyone should be proud of who they are. That everyone should celebrate their lives, no matter what. I believe that is why we are alive. Like I said, I have attended a few Pride parades. I had an apt in Seattle. Belltown. I worked right next to Westlake. I had many gay/lesbian friends/coworkers. I never hurt anyone. I’m not that kind of person. I support the idea that everyone should have equal rights. What about gays and lesbians in general? I have never had a problem with them. I have had many gay guys hit on me, and I didn’t get mad, I just explained to them that it wasn’t my thing, that I was a heterosexual, and that I have always been attracted to girls/women.

4. Was the Heterosexual Pride event meant to detract from, or counter, the LGBT movement? Or was it merely an event where heterosexual folks could find community and identity?

Anthony: Not at all. I am an individual. As an individual, I have always done my own thing. I have always appreciated people who do. I don’t want to control anyone. It’s hard enough to control myself sometimes, lol! This event is merely an event where heterosexual folks can find community and identity, a place for Heterosexuals to identify with other Heterosexuals and be #ProudToBe Heterosexual. I tried to make it clear in the statement on the event:

“In the name of equality & equal rights, I have created this event to celebrate our heterosexuality, and to encourage younger heterosexuals that they should be proud of their heterosexuality. This is not a protest. It is a celebration for all to enjoy. Hope to see you there.”

“I think it’s a trend. A cry for attention. From your government, a distraction. For $.” – in this statement, you compared homosexual marriage to allowing animals to get married. You also said you don’t agree with turning boys into girls, and vice versa, and referred to it as a “shitshow”.

Do you stand by these statements? How do you address that now?

Anthony: At the time, Gay marriage was a *trending topic, in the news every day, and all up in everyone’s faces all the time. To be honest, I was sick of hearing about it. I tried to show support for the idea that we don’t need approval from anyone to have a good relationship. That a solid healthy relationship is between the 2 people having the relationship, and nobody else. I wrote a blog entry called “Marriage” http://smilemeariver.blogspot.com/2014/07/marriage.html which says this:

“You don’t need a third party, or a piece of paper to have a good relationship with someone. You don’t need anyone’s permission, or approval. If you make each other happy, that’s what matters. It is between you, and the person you are involved with, not you and society”

Soon after that, I posted another entry, where I said:

“In response to the whole gay marriage thing, as an artist, and an individual, I feel the need to voice my opinion on the subject. I apologize if my opinion hurts anyone’s feelings.”

I wasn’t actually trying to compare insects getting married with gay people getting married. The point I was that in my opinion, people were making things too complicated. I was trying to simplify things in my own sarcastic, smart ass kind of way. I am an artist, and an individual, and I can see now how this may have been perceived differently by many. In hindsight, I could have worded it better, and I probably should have. Either way, that’s how it came out, and I honestly wasn’t trying to hurt anyone. I was just venting my opinion creatively.

Now to be fair, when researching this story, we did find one example of a straight pride parade (page 21) that was, in fact, religiously motivated and intolerant towards LGBT people. This was very clearly far departed from the example above. At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst campus, the Young Americans for Freedom group sponsored a “Straight-Pride Rally” on April 24th, 1990. They reportedly waved bibles and shouted insulting phrases towards gays and lesbians. But at best, this appears to be an isolated incident, and it’s very difficult to find any other examples of this happening. With that being the case, there’s no indication that “straight-pride day” necessarily means anything at all anti-gay.

This goes to show that pride, like any emotion, can inspire someone to do good or bad. So maybe we’re going about this the wrong way. Instead of “straight pride”, first… what is “pride?”

Emotions May Vary

Lets start with a complex, yet (sometimes) easy to understand emotion like “love”.

You probably love your parents, your cat, and your significant other. But you love each of these things in a different way, because there are different *kinds* of love, and ways you can love. I mean, I also love French fries. Just not in the same way I love Jaline. (Sorry baby cakes, fries come first!)

In that same exact way, there’s different kinds of “pride” a person can feel. There’s the pride you feel towards an accomplishment, or after having achieved an important goal. But there’s also other sorts of pride. For example, if your son or daughter does really well on a project, you might feel a sense of pride – even though it’s an accomplishment done by someone else, you still feel this way! It’s simply a different kind of pride.

How many of you out there are proud to be an American? Or for our international readers, are you proud to be British? Irish? Norwegian? I’ve had people tell me such pride is ridiculous, but it most certainly isn’t. The pride you feel for your country is just another kind of pride. It’s not good or bad in and of itself. It’s just a normal feeling. What you do in response to that feeling is your choice, and that’s where the “good” and “bad” aspect of it comes in. Does American pride inspire you to help those in need? Or take their rights away?

I have straight friends who are very dear to me. Some of them are as close as family. I can’t imagine why on earth would I *NOT* want them to feel proud, and good about who they are! To say otherwise is a double standard. I can have pride, but you can’t – completely not recognizing at all that their pride might be different, held to a different degree, at a different level, and might have purposes or reasoning.

Now remember, what pride inspires you to do is the important question! That can be either good or bad. The pride parade held at the university of Massachusetts, the pride event certainly wasn’t very welcoming or inclusive. Yet the pride parade that Anthony organized most certainly was, and the LGBT brutally harassed him for it (possibly inspired by their own sense of pride).

If you could show that straight-pride day was inherently anti-LGBT, or hateful, or based on some kind of discrimination, or SOMETHING to that effect – then this whole entire thing would be completely different. An event held by a KKK group is reasonably expected to fit such a description, and if you could show something similar with straight pride, there would then be a perfectly acceptable reason to denounce straight-pride in general.

But this simply isn’t the case. Straight Pride does not automatically mean anti-gay. In fact the only people who are currently saying are from the LGBT community. I’ve yet to see a straight-pride person say anything negative.

So What’s the Purpose Behind Gay Pride?

We’ve covered how pride can vary, and how Straight-Pride can’t reasonably be pinned down with any one intent or purpose, as it depends on what pride inspires the person to do in each case. But the idea of “Gay Pride” is pretty well established, and steeped in some history! So surely this one is easier to get a hold of.

Howard P. Kainz, professor of philosophy at Marquette University, Milwaukee points out in his book “Politically Incorrect Dialogues” that:

“I also find the reference “pride” inappropriate. Pride is warranted when one has done something or accomplished something worthwhile. If, as has been suggested, true homosexuality is something inborn and natural, or at least not a matter of conscious choice, I see nothing to be either proud or, for that matter, ashamed of. Pride is simply out of place and out of it’s proper context“.

He follows this by stating how a “heterosexual pride” day would be immediately recognized as “dumb and ridiculous”.

As we’ve seen above, however, there are different kinds of pride, just as there are different kinds of anger, love, sadness, and so on. He does make a point, however, that

there seems to be something different between gay-pride and straight-pride. After all, supporting one of these gets you near universal acceptance, while accepting the other can risk having your life ruined (and which one you think is which says a lot about you).

Michele J. Eliason, professor at San Francisco State University, states in her book “Who Cares – Institutional Barriers to Health Care for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Persons”, that:

“Whenever I do a workshop on lesbian, gay, and bisexual issues, someone inevitably asks: “Why must you people have those parades and rallies? Heterosexuals don’t have straight pride rallies”. There are several reasons gay pride celebrations are important and a necessary part of gay life today. First [LGBT] people often feel isolated and alone . . . a yearly gay pride event allows them to come together and celebrate their lives. For a few hours a day, they can be in the majority instead of being a hated minority. Second, heterosexual people can affirm their identities in a myriad of ways: by putting engagement, wedding, birth, and anniversary announcements in the newspaper, by bringing their families to work-related social events, [etc]. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people often lack that support, and need to create their own ways of affirming themselves . . . and heterosexuals also have parades–homecoming, Mardi Gras, wedding dances [etc] and many other kinds of celebrations all affirm heterosexuality”

So again, “pride” simply means something different when referring to either straight or gay, and in each case, may serve different purposes. If Mardi Gras and wedding dances are already a sort of straight-pride event, and we’re totally okay with those, then why do we have a problem with another straight pride event simply called “straight-pride”? Gay-pride may indeed include the overcoming of oppression in years passed – this is something gay pride can include that straight-pride probably doesn’t.

However, I want to dispel a certain notion that straight people “have always been accepted”, and have never faced oppression.

When I was a straight white man, I was told every day how worthless I was; that I was sexist for ever even looking at a woman; that I had only one thing on my mind; that I thought about it every 7 seconds; that any – and I do mean *ANY* – expression of interest in a woman was harassment; that I was the problem; that I was a part of this thing called “patriarchy”; that even though I spent most of my adult life homeless, I was “privileged”; that the only thing I was ever allowed to express was apology and shame for all the “privilege” I had, despite sleeping on park benches; and that the very normal emotions I have for a woman were somehow wrong.

Moreover, as a white straight man, I was definitely the target of public-sphere violence. It was okay to physically challenge me and try to beat me up, because hey, I’m a man, and I can fight back, right? Having street smarts kept me alive numerous times. I knew not to walk down a back alley with a brand new pair of Nikes.

Now that I’m a woman – all of that vanished.

Now, if I have any of those same feelings, it’s my LGBT rights! And you’re a bigot for even lifting an eye-brow. And it’s wrong to hit a woman! While I’m still just as strong and capable as I was before, the difference in how people treat me is extremely obvious. Men no longer challenge me to a fight. That would be silly – I’m a woman. Moreover I can walk down any back alley I want now and you can’t dare mention whether or not that was smart to do, because that’s victim blaming!

Finally, Michele J. Eliason‘s book was published in 1996. Since then, things have changed quite a bit for LGBT people. In fact, here’s a graph provided by Ben Mully, who took the position against having a Heterosexual Pride Day. You can see that post here.

As we can see, things are quite a bit different today than they were in 1996.

Ben also argues in favor of that additional caveat that the word “pride” carries for the LGBT community.

—– —–Pride day [is] a celebration of OVERCOMING oppression so that you can sit comfortably in the year 2016 and say you don’t feel oppressed. The phrase “Gay Pride” started when a very real fight for equality was being waged in America and it’s use is honored in all sorts of LGBT events from Pride days, to Pride Parades, to Pride Fests, etc etc etc. That’s why it’s used in this context. It’s a part of American history that many believe should not be ignored, especially because there are still strong political forces that are pushing a message to take us backwards to a time when homosexuals were treated as second class citizens.
—– —–

In the same discussion, Ben takes the stance that since gays have a pride day for that reason, it’s precisely why heterosexuals cannot have one; if you’ve never experienced institutional oppression, then you are specifically disallowed from using the word “pride” in this context.

But as we’ve seen, “pride” does not necessarily have to mean or include this one particular thing, or have this particular context. There are many different kinds of pride, and when someone wants to have a pride day, they could be doing so with their own intentions in mind. A holiday based on American pride – or pride for any sports team – would not require the same historical context. Moreover, straight-pride day is not being officially sanctioned by any governing body. It’s simply individuals who want to participate in their own event, with the intention of reaffirming their own identities. And it’s *very* possible to have a straight-pride day without it having an anti-gay agenda. I mean here’s just such an example from a straight woman.

And although there is absolutely no indication that straight-pride must necessarily be anti-gay – there is no spokesman, no doctrine, no pamphlet, no mission statement, and no widely accepted belief or creed necessarily attached to this particular event – that is the only narrative that’s being allowed by the LGBT “community”. To have straight-pride must mean you are anti-gay. Even when there’s almost no one to be found on the straight-pride of the argument saying so. In fact, I’ve been blocked by nearly a dozen people so far on facebook before the post you’re reading now even got posted. Even daring to ask why straight-pride is bad is enough to get insta-banned from the communities I was once a part of. Remember when that sort of treatment was given to anyone supporting an LGBT issue?

Lets take a look at the mainstream reaction to #heterosexualprideday , which is now trending.

>> Apparently, people haven’t taken enough away from the LGBTQ community, so it’s time take Pride celebrations from them.

^^^ How on earth are my straight friends, who want to have a pride celebration of their own, taking anything away from me? I mean this is not some faceless, menacing and unfalsifiable “culture” that exists only in narrative. These are real flesh-and-blood people on my facebook who I can message and talk to right now. Some of them are as close as family, and they’d even be willing to invite me TO a straight-pride event as a guest, even though I’m not straight.

Really, who is trying to take away gay prides simply by having straight pride?

Here’s some of that unfalsifiable culture now. If you’re straight, you belong to a “culture” that automatically makes me oppressed. Hence I can have pride and you can’t. And even though there are literally scores of pages mocking straight pride, it’s still somehow you who’s mocking us by the very suggestion.

>> Straight pride” marches have actually been around since the nineties, and were started by people who opposed any steps forward for LGBTQ rights.

^^^ In the last 30 years, you will be hard pressed to find even 1 straight pride parade. They have not “been around”. The absolute most I could find are rare individual instances, like the two listed above.

And while one of those did have anti-LGBT activists involved, that does not mean that absolutely everyone, from now on, forever, has to be anti-gay simply for having straight pride. In the same sense, I’m 100% certain there have been gay-pride people who were anti-straight. In fact I even remember reading an article on this a while back, but I have no intention on providing links because it just doesn’t matter – the fact that those gay-pride folks were anti-straight does not at all mean I’m that way, just because they were.

^^^ As long as you’re not causing my rent to go up, or making me late for work, I honestly wouldn’t are if you had a #DoTheHokeyPokeyDay . It’s a free country, so organize whatever day you want. As long as you’re not hurting anyone else, and you’re having a good time, by all means, be my guest.

>> You don’t choose your sexuality but you do get to choose if you’re really insecure about it. Happy, #HeterosexualPrideDay!

^^^ Okay so you have to be insecure about your sexuality before you can have a pride day?

Damn. Guess I can’t go to gay-pride then. 😦

>> #HeterosexualPrideDay i have nothing against the heteros, i just dont want it shoved in my face, or on the internet where children can see

^^^ Well, yea. I wouldn’t want anyone shoving something in my face, regardless of what it was. The only time I want you to do that is if it’s French fries after a heavy leg training day.

I’ve had gay folks go on and on about the details of their sex lives without inviting the discussion, to an extent I didn’t feel comfortable with, in an environment where it wasn’t appropriate – and ditto for straight folks.

As far as the internet goes, sure, there are plenty of gay and straight porn sites that I agree kids shouldn’t be looking at. Like we covered, this isn’t 1970, where holding hands is “shoving it in your face”. Gay people hold hands all the time now, and while gay pride may commemorate overcoming such barriers, straight pride doesn’t have to. You’re allowed to feel pride, regardless of whether you’re straight, gay, lesbian, latino, black, or …. or… (yea there’s one race that has to be left out for now, but we’ll get into that in another post).

^^^ Again, straight pride does not *have* to be about the same thing gay pride is about. I mean one is straight, the other is gay – they’re already not the same. Gay pride can be about overcoming barriers. Straight pride can be simply feeling good about who you are, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.

^^^ Problematic when one day, people think being gay is valid and normal, and people aren’t taking your rights away. What then? Probably you’ll have to start dreaming up some “Hetero-archy” (just like the patriarchy) where a group of super rich and powerful hetero-people are causing you to be paid 77 cents for every dollar a straight person makes, or some other such nonsense.

Instead of making your pride day contingent on how oppressed you are and forever will be, why not celebrate your pride day, and then let others – yes, even straight people – be who they are, and do what they want, so long as it’s not bothering you?

It’s simply astounding, with breathtaking exasperation, that the very people who were once told they couldn’t have displays of pride for themselves in public……………. are now telling others they can’t have displays of pride for themselves in public.

^^^ Actually yea, I have friends who are black too. I’ve dated black women. Kinda makes you wonder how that’s possible if I were actually racist. The arguments that come back are usually something akin to “all white people are racist” – because having white skin automatically gives you a certain set of characteristics (which is ironically the definition of racism), and I secretly AM racist, just on some subconscious level that I’m unaware of. This has more to do with you wanting to assume the role of victim than with me actually being racist.

If you’re trying to be an ally, and you keep getting accused of this shit, or you end up having your pride mocked with a baby crying on a white flag, you’re better off just not being an ally. Respect is a 2 way street, and we are NOT more entitled just because we’re gay or lesbian.

In that same way, it seems you actually want straight-pride to be anti-gay. Keep in mind that there was literally no other prompting that straight-pride, on it’s own, meant anything anti-gay. This is what people came up with on their own as soon as they heard the term, because they insist on an “us-vs-them” mentality. As we get closer and closer to equality, now with gay marriage being legalized, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now interpreting the Civil Rights Act to include LGBT people, how will you keep this going?

When 2nd Wave Feminism established equality for women, 3rd Wave feminist in the 90s had nothing to fight for. So they began making shit up – like the wage gap caused by sexism, the long debunked theory of objectification, the existence of male privilege, and so on. This is allowed lots of young women a chance to feel persecuted, and “continue fighting” against nonsense that no longer exists, and some that never existed at all.

Is that really where this is going? To stay relevant, do we have to start dreaming up that everyone who isn’t like us is now an enemy out to get us? Do we *REALLY* need to build ourselves up by tearing others down?

It appears so. And that’s why I’m no longer a part of that “community”.